Richard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. […]
Richard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that during the argument, “two of the court’s most experienced practitioners recounted the founding of the union and the framing of the Constitution, and both claimed the notion of state sovereignty was on their side.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that “[t]he justices’ questions … reflected broader concerns that could frame the reconsideration of precedents liberals cherish, such as the abortion-rights case Roe v. Wade, should the court’s conservative majority choose to review them.” Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required).
Ronald Mann has this blog’s analysis of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first Supreme Court opinion, in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., in which the court held on Tuesday 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. Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report for The Wall Street Journal that, “in contrast to his contentious confirmation hearings last fall, Justice Kavanaugh’s debut was the picture of comity, writing for a unanimous court to resolve a procedural issue in arbitration between two businesses.” Robert Shea looks at the decision at Ogletree Deakins.
For this blog, Gregory Ablavsky analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Jessica Litman has this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s second argument, in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, in which the justices considered when registration of a copyright claim has been made under the copyright statute. This blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, about whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures, comes from Danielle D’Onfro.
- The Alcohol Law Review looks at the briefing in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to the state of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing.
- For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall cover Tuesday’s unsigned Supreme Court order “reject[ing] an unnamed foreign company’s effort to avoid penalties for defying a grand jury subpoena that appears to be part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian electoral interference.”
- At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo writes that the justices “on Friday will consider taking the first direct challenge to abortion rights since Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench,” in a challenge to an Indiana law prohibiting pre-viability abortions based on race, sex, or disability and regulating the disposal of fetal remains.
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!