Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upThe justices wrap up the first week of the January session today with one oral argument, in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the court will consider whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Richard Re previewed the […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

The justices wrap up the first week of the January session today with one oral argument, in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the court will consider whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Richard Re previewed the case for this blog. Clotilde Le Roy and Jarrett Field have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

In his first Supreme Court opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous court yesterday in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., holding that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the arbitrator to decide whether a dispute should be decided in arbitration, regardless of the court’s view of the merits of the request for arbitration. Kevin Daley covers the opinion for The Daily Caller, and Daniel Pasternak provides analysis at The National Law Review. At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that “Kavanaugh’s opinion was a terse 10 pages long, written in straightforward prose, and he began the opinion with a brief summary of the case and its outcome, which not all justices do.” At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson explains that assigning Kavanaugh a unanimous first opinion accords with an “informal tradition” on the Supreme Court.

Yesterday the justices also held unanimously, in Culbertson v. Berryhill, that a 25 percent cap in the Social Security Act on the award of attorney’s fees applies only to fees for representing a client in court, and not to aggregate fees for both court representation and representation before the agency. Kathryn Moore analyzes the opinion for this blog.

Yesterday the justices denied a stay requested by the challengers in a racial-gerrymandering case, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. Amy Howe covers the court’s order for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Gregory Schneider reports for The Washington Post that by rejecting the stay, the Supreme Court “declined to delay the process of drawing new districts for at least 11 Virginia House of Delegates seats.” At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that “[t]he Republican lawmakers had asked for the lower court’s efforts to be blocked at least until after the Supreme Court holds oral arguments in the next few months on the larger constitutional issues raised by the racial gerrymander claim.”

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that the unnamed corporation at the center of a dispute over a grand jury subpoena believed to be related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election returned to the court yesterday with a request for permission to file a cert petition under seal; the court also rejected without comment and with no published dissents the corporation’s request for a stay of a lower-court order requiring it to comply with the subpoena or pay penalties. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “[t]he grand jury dispute has been shrouded in mystery, in part because officials closed an entire floor of a federal courthouse in Washington during arguments on Dec. 7.” Additional coverage comes from Bill Mears at Fox News, Robert Barnes and others for The Washington Post, Ariane de Vogue and Katelyn Polantz at CNN, and Adam Liptak for The New York Times.

Elizabeth McCuskey has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Albrecht, which raises questions about whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim is pre-empted by federal law regulating the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that the justices “appeared sympathetic to Merck & Co in its bid to fend off hundreds of lawsuits accusing the company of failing to adequately warn patients of the risks of thigh bone fractures associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax.”

Briefly:

  • At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that this spring’s oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti, a “dispute … over streetwear designer Erik Brunetti’s clothing line called FUCT,” “is likely to cause heartburn among the justices, who have long tried to keep profanity from vanquishing civility.”
  • Mark Schleifstein reports at NOLA.com that, with a cert denial on Monday, the Supreme Court “ended a 14-year legal effort by residents of St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans to seek compensation for flood damage during Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Gustav resulting from the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet.”
  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie looks at Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, the two partisan-gerrymandering cases on the Supreme Court’s March argument agenda, observing that “[t]he crux of Chief Justice Roberts’ approach to gerrymandering seems to be this: these cases don’t belong here[, because t]he judiciary is not the right venue for setting limits on how legislatures draw electoral lines.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Andy Pincus argues that “[p]olitics, not any real governmental concern, is behind the [federal government’s] request for urgent Supreme Court action” in three cases “rejecting Trump administration arguments that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program is illegal,” and that the Supreme Court “should refuse to become a party to the administration’s political strategy.”
  • At The Federalist Society Review, Joel Nolette previews Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., in which the justices will consider next week whether the term “full costs” awarded to a prevailing party in a copyright case is limited to taxable costs or also authorizes nontaxable costs.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upToday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Gregory Ablavsky previewed the case for this blog. Cecilia Bruni and Trevor O’Bryan have a preview at Cornell Law School’s […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Gregory Ablavsky previewed the case for this blog. Cecilia Bruni and Trevor O’Bryan have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin reports that this is “the third high court clash this term asking the justices to parse an old treaty’s modern effect against the backdrop of the government’s serial broken promises to Indian tribes,” but that it “differ[s] from the others in at least one important respect: Herrera has the Trump administration’s support.”

This morning’s second argument is in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, in which the court will decide when registration of a copyright claim has been made under the copyright statute. Jessica Litman had this blog’s preview. Julia Hollreiser and Benjamin Rodd preview the case for Cornell.

Yesterday the court issued additional orders from its conference on Friday; the justices did not grant any new cases, and they issued two summary opinions and asked for the views of the solicitor general in four cases, two of which are related. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger looks at the summary decisions.

For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still recuperating from cancer surgery and was not on the bench Monday when the Supreme Court began a new round of oral arguments, the first time in her career as a justice that she has missed a session.”  Mark Sherman reports for AP that “Chief Justice John Roberts said in the courtroom Monday that Ginsburg would participate in deciding the argued cases ‘on the basis of the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments.’”

Briefly:

  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle report that “[t]he first bill introduced by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last week contains a provision that would include U.S. Supreme Court justices for the first time in a newly created code of conduct.”
  • Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that “President Donald Trump is betting big on the Supreme Court in 2019 to revive controversial policies on issues ranging from immigration and border security to transgender soldiers in the military.”
  • At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that the court “on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a Missouri school district over its at-large school board elections, which a federal appeals court struck down last year as a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
  • Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, which was argued yesterday and which asks whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures.
  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the chief justice’s year-end report, along with the oral arguments in two cases: Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, which involves service of process on foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and Biestek v. Berryhill, in which the justices considered social security benefits claimants’ ability to scrutinize the data on which benefits denials are based.
  • At Just Security, Marty Lederman considers the pending stay motions and petitions for certiorari before judgment in a group of challenges to the Trump administration’s ban on service in the military by most transgender people, in order “to highlight some interesting ways in which DOJ has recently tried to frame the merits of the case, and, more broadly, to unpack just what’s at stake in these challenges.”
  • At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger writes that United States v. Davis, which the court agreed on Friday to review and which asks whether the definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague in the context of federal criminal prosecutions involving firearms, will test “[h]ow far … we stretch the interpretation of a statute to avoid a constitutional problem.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upThis morning the Supreme Court kicks off the January argument session with oral arguments in two cases. The first is Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Albrecht, which raises questions about whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim is pre-empted by federal law regulating the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. Elizabeth McCuskey previewed the case for this […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court kicks off the January argument session with oral arguments in two cases. The first is Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Albrecht, which raises questions about whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim is pre-empted by federal law regulating the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. Elizabeth McCuskey previewed the case for this blog. Garion Liberti and Tayler Woelcke have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case today is Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, which asks whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures. Danielle D’Onfro had this blog’s argument preview; Grace Brosofsky and Luís L. Lozada preview the case for Cornell.

On Friday, the justices added two high-profile partisan-gerrymandering cases to their docket; the cases will be argued in March. Amy Howe covers the grants for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report that the court will “review two lower-court rulings: one that struck down a North Carolina congressional map drawn by Republicans that has been highly favorable to the GOP, and another that invalidated a Maryland congressional district drawn by Democrats to eliminate a Republican-held seat”; they note that “[t]he cases could have major ramifications for U.S. elections, and they promise to elevate the profile of a Supreme Court term that so far has lacked blockbuster litigation.” Additional coverage comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, who reports that Justice Brett “Kavanaugh may hold the key vote in the case, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has voiced reluctance to have the court referee partisan gerrymandering claims.” Ruthann Robson looks at the cases for the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

In addition to the partisan-gerrymandering cases, the justices granted four other cert petitions on Friday. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that in Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices will “review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.” At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson explains that the case involves “the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which  prohibits the federal registration of ‘immoral’ or ‘scandalous’ trademarks[; t]he Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that the section violates the First Amendment.”

Briefly:

  • A new episode of First Mondays (podcast) “catch[es] up on Supreme Court news and look[s] ahead to the coming arguments.”
  • In the latest episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin unpack the case of Texas death-row inmate Bobby James Moore, who “is back at the U.S. Supreme Court after he already won a case there in 2017” and even though a Texas district attorney says he “shouldn’t be executed, due to his intellectual disability.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Deborah La Fetra urges the justices to review a challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on corporate contributions and “to revisit, and discard, the amorphous ‘appearance of corruption’ justification for contribution restrictions.”
  • In an op-ed for The Baltimore Sun, Dawinder Sidhu argues that the court should review a lower-court ruling that struck down Maryland’s anti-price-gouging law as a violation of the dormant commerce clause, and should “restore the authority of Maryland and other states to address the health needs of their people.”
  • At Greenwire (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer previews Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest, noting that the case has “important implications for natural resources, public lands and American Indian law.”
  • At E&E News, Gilmer reports that “[t]he Trump administration is pushing the Supreme Court to review what could be the most consequential environmental case of the term: a broiling Clean Water Act debate,” as the “Justice Department [has] recommended [that] the high court decide whether the landmark environmental law applies to pollution that travels through groundwater before reaching federally regulated water.”
  • At Reason, Damon Root assesses the life and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concluding that “[w]hen it comes to the case of the Notorious RBG, the jury is still out.”
  • At the Washington Independent Review of Books, Kenneth Jost reviews “Glass and Gavel: The U.S. Supreme Court and Alcohol,” which “traces the justices’ drinking habits through time and the court’s voluminous alcohol-related jurisprudence.”
  • Another Supreme Court-related book review comes from Garrett Epps, who reviews Richard Brookhiser’s new biography of Chief Justice John Marshall for The Washington Post, suggesting that, perhaps because the book’s “focus is on politics, not law,” the author “doesn’t give Marshall his full due.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upBriefly: Tony Mauro reports at Law.com that “Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who until now recused himself in a pending copyright case, Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., will participate after all”; “[b]ecause of a family inheritance several years ago, Alito and his wife have had holdings in numerous corporations, unlike most other justices,” [and […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • Tony Mauro reports at Law.com that “Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who until now recused himself in a pending copyright case, Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., will participate after all”; “[b]ecause of a family inheritance several years ago, Alito and his wife have had holdings in numerous corporations, unlike most other justices,” [and Alito] has sold several of the stocks over time, often in anticipation of an oral argument that posed a conflict of interest.”
  • At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo writes that “[t]he Supreme Court on Friday will consider taking three cases that could determine whether an employer can legally discriminate against employees for being LGBTQ,” noting that “[i]f the Court agrees to hear some, or all, of the petitions, it will be testing both the strength of employment discrimination law under Title VII and retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s LGBTQ rights legacy.”
  • At Route Fifty, Bill Lucia reports that “Fifteen Republican state attorneys general are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side against over two dozen states and local governments battling with the Trump administration over the inclusion of a question about citizenship status on the 2020 census.”

  • Also at Route Fifty, Laura Maggi looks at The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
  • At FiveThirtyEight, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux observes that “[o]ver the past few months, the solicitor general’s office has blanketed the court with requests to bypass the normal legal process and rule swiftly in high-profile cases,” concluding that “[w]hatever happens, [the justices’] responses to the Trump administration this month will be an important indicator of how the court’s conservative wing — and in particular, Chief Justice Roberts — sees their relationship with the president.”
  • At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that “[t]he Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a pair of cases tackling partisan gerrymandering head on,” and that “[i]f the court once again fails to settle the partisan gerrymandering issue this term, or gives its blessing to extreme gerrymanders, it may spur additional states [to adopt] redistricting commissions and lawsuits challenging them.”
  • At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr offers his take on why the plaintiffs in Frank v. Gaos, which involves the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Google under the Stored Communications Act for disclosing users’ search terms, have standing; he suggests that “the case is easier when you realize that Section 2702 is better understood as an intangible conversion statute, not a privacy tort statute,” so that “[b]y alleging a Section 2702 violation, the plaintiffs are alleging a concrete and particular harm: Conversion of their personal property, albeit through intangible means of copying and distributing it.”
  • In an op-ed for USA Today, Glenn Harlan Reynolds considers Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, noting that “though at the end of Prohibition, states were allowed to stay ‘dry’ if they wanted to, or to restrict liquor sales to state-monopoly stores, the purpose of that local-option provision wasn’t to allow them to discriminate against people from elsewhere.”
  • Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in which the court held that the Endangered Species Act allows the government to designate land as a “critical habitat” only if it is habitat for the listed species, and that the designating agency’s assessment of the costs and benefits of the designation is reviewable in court.
  • In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere urge the justices to review Mance v. Whitaker, “in which the Fifth Circuit upheld a pre-Heller federal law prohibiting licensed dealers from selling handguns across state lines,” contending that “[w]ith Mance, the court could provide a meaningful framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases without directly affecting any state law.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upBriefly: For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, noting that “[o]ne thing seems clear: Some 85 years after the 21st Amendment was ratified, lower courts are still eager to get further guidance from the Supreme Court.” In […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Briefly:

  • For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, noting that “[o]ne thing seems clear: Some 85 years after the 21st Amendment was ratified, lower courts are still eager to get further guidance from the Supreme Court.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse takes issue with Justice Clarence Thomas’ increasingly influential argument that, by refusing to hear a series of challenges to restrictions on gun ownership and use, “the justices are treating the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right.’”
  • At SI Live, Daniel Leddy argues that “[t]wo recent votes by [Chief Justice John] Roberts are further evidence that he’s turning into another Anthony Kennedy.”

  • In an op-ed at Forbes, Steve Denning looks at a judicial panel’s recent dismissal of judicial-misconduct claims against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that “to call this justice is to misunderstand the meaning of the term and construe it in the sense that Gilbert & Sullivan, not James Madison and the Founding Fathers of this country, intended.”
  • At American Greatness, Mark Pulliam remarks that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “ultimate legacy … may be that her stubborn—and, in hindsight, ill-considered—refusal to resign while President Obama was in office may allow the Left’s nemesis, President Donald Trump, to appoint her successor.”
  • The Ginsburg Tapes (podcast) looks at Ginsburg’s “debut as an oral advocate in the Supreme Court in Frontiero v. Richardson[, which] involved a challenge to a law that treated men and women serving in the military differently.”
  • In an op-ed for The Baltimore Sun, Kelly Shackelford weighs in on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, arguing that “[t]he Establishment Clause is designed to prohibit the state from coercing its citizens to engage in a particular religious observance — it was never meant to sanitize the public square from all traces of religion.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upOn Monday evening, Chief Justice John Roberts released his year-end report on the federal judiciary. Amy Howe writes for this blog that the report “focus[ed] on the judiciary’s response to allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace.” At Law.com, Tony Mauro notes that “[i]t was the second annual report in which Roberts discussed the need […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

On Monday evening, Chief Justice John Roberts released his year-end report on the federal judiciary. Amy Howe writes for this blog that the report “focus[ed] on the judiciary’s response to allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace.” At Law.com, Tony Mauro notes that “[i]t was the second annual report in which Roberts discussed the need for the judiciary to take steps to end sexual harassment in the workplace and to make it easier for court employees to report improper conduct without running afoul of strict confidentiality rules.” For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “[t]he Supreme Court itself isn’t bound by the federal laws and codes of conduct that apply to lower courts,” and “[t]he report gave no indication that the justices were prepared to accept the obligations expected of lower courts.” Bill Mears reports for Fox News that “[w]hat was noteworthy in the 15-page report was a topic Roberts chose not to discuss: the ongoing criticism by President Trump of judges and courts that have ruled against him, especially on his immigration policies.”

Lydia Wheeler reports for The Hill that although the “Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term got off to a sleepy start, … there are a number of potential blockbusters on the docket for the new year”; she takes “a look at the top five cases to watch.” In an op-ed for Fox News, John Yoo and James Phillips explain why “[t]he year ahead has the potential to be historic for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Briefly:

  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Elliot Mincberg warns that in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, “the American Legion’s lawyers and supporters are arguing that the court should upend numerous court decisions and rule that government can legally take action to promote or endorse a specific religion,” which “would effectively turn those who do not believe in that religion into second-class citizens.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
  • Steven Mazie observes for The Economist that “On the Basis of Sex,” a new movie about the young Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early career as a women’s-rights litigator, “brings a measure of hope to viewers who cheer the revolution in gender equality the past half-century has wrought.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upBriefly: At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie notes that “[i]t has been a fairly quiet few months at the Supreme Court,” but “that may change as 2019 begins”: “The justices have already accepted three high-profile cases to be heard in the spring,” and their “next private conference on January 4th could include […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie notes that “[i]t has been a fairly quiet few months at the Supreme Court,” but “that may change as 2019 begins”: “The justices have already accepted three high-profile cases to be heard in the spring,” and their “next private conference on January 4th could include a range of hot-button cases that would shove the court further into the limelight.”
  • At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson writes that “[g]iven the renewed concerns regarding the impartiality of the Court … , it might be time for Chief Justice Roberts to reconsider his position” that extending the judicial code of conduct to Supreme Court justices would be unconstitutional, “[a]nd it will be interesting to see if Roberts addresses ethics in his 2018 year end report.”
  • At Politico Magazine, Nelson Cunningham looks at the “mysterious grand jury subpoena case,” believed to be related to the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into interference in the 2016 election, in which the Supreme Court has been asked to block a subpoena issued to a foreign corporation.
  • At Reason, Walter Olson urges the court to rule in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries that companies can’t be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by asbestos that was added to the companies’ products by third parties after the point of sale, arguing that “[u]npredictable liability drives up the cost of government contracting and, to the extent it falls on shipbuilding, the cost of navigation, another concern of maritime law.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.]

  • At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Joe Hollingsworth and Katharine Latimer weigh in on Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, arguing that “the [lower court’s] Home Depot decision and its ilk improperly deny an entire sub-category of defendants protection from abusive state court class actions.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
  • In an op-ed for Fox News on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a challenge to the placement on public land of a World War I memorial shaped like a cross, Gary McCaleb, a former wildland firefighter, implores “atheists and courts [to] let us honor our fallen as we will,” maintaining that “[n]o reasonable person would mistake the purpose of those crosses, and no legal principle should justify toppling them one by one.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upBriefly: At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin reports on “the curious case of Bobby James Moore,” which “is knocking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s door again” after a state court found for a second time that Moore is not too intellectually disabled to be executed. Bill Mears reports for Fox News that the Supreme Court could […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin reports on “the curious case of Bobby James Moore,” which “is knocking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s door again” after a state court found for a second time that Moore is not too intellectually disabled to be executed.
  • Bill Mears reports for Fox News that the Supreme Court could be front and center again next year “in Donald Trump’s Washington,” as “[t]he justices are confronting a number of immigration-related legal challenges that could be added to the docket in coming months — and the president sees the high court’s shaky conservative majority as his best shot at upholding a top political and national security priority.”
  • At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]he Trump administration filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief Wednesday [in American Legion v. American Humanist Association],urging the Supreme Court to protect a 93-year-old war memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, that is shaped like a Latin cross.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
  • At Law.com, Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro highlight their most-read pieces about the Supreme Court over the past year.
  • Fix the Court offers a year-end report on Supreme Court transparency.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upIn op-ed for The Hill, Kristin Waggoner weighs in on American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to the placement on public land of a World War I memorial shaped like a cross, maintaining that “[t]he sight of a cross-shaped memorial to fallen heroes moves many of us,” and … [n]othing legitimizes […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

In op-ed for The Hill, Kristin Waggoner weighs in on American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to the placement on public land of a World War I memorial shaped like a cross, maintaining that “[t]he sight of a cross-shaped memorial to fallen heroes moves many of us,” and … [n]othing legitimizes eliminating these noble sentiments from our political landscape because the symbols that evoke them might offend someone.” In an op-ed at USA Today, Alexandra McPhee argues that “[a] decision in favor of the Bladensburg Memorial could mean public officials would feel more empowered to recognize the reason for the season in the public square,” heading off a “steady stream of complaints about Christmas-themed events and displays” on public space. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

Briefly: 

  • AP reports that “[a] spokeswoman for the Supreme Court says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been discharged from the hospital after cancer surgery” and is now “’recuperating at home.’”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “examin[es] the President’s take on his relationship with the Supreme Court,” noting that “the Court was one of President Trump’s favorite topics of discussion this past year.”
  • At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin look at some of the “lighter moments at the U.S. Supreme Court last year, “count[ing] down the Top 10 funniest moments in a Supremely Funny podcast.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upBriefly: A.O. Scott reviews “On the Basis of Sex,” a new movie about the early career of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in The New York Times that “[t]his is, almost literally, the story of how Ginsburg found her voice.” At Law and Liberty, Mark Pulliam argues that after last term’s decision in union-fees case Janus […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • A.O. Scott reviews “On the Basis of Sex,” a new movie about the early career of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in The New York Times that “[t]his is, almost literally, the story of how Ginsburg found her voice.”
  • At Law and Liberty, Mark Pulliam argues that after last term’s decision in union-fees case Janus v. AFSCME, “[t]he rationale for upholding compulsory dues to unified bar associations has been discredited,” and that “the Court’s recent action in Fleck v. Wetch, overturning an Eighth Circuit ruling that had upheld mandatory bar dues in North Dakota, and remanding the case ‘for further consideration in light of Janus’ appears to be very consequential—handwriting on the proverbial wall.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com