Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upBriefly: At The Narrowest Grounds, Asher Steinberg argues that the court’s opinion in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which held that a pension plan maintained by a church-affiliated group qualifies for ERISA’s church-plan exemption no matter who established the plan, “exhibits three textualist pathologies that we textualists should cure ourselves of:  conflating literal meaning with legal meaning, overconfidence about what a statute literally […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At The Narrowest Grounds, Asher Steinberg argues that the court’s opinion in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which held that a pension plan maintained by a church-affiliated group qualifies for ERISA’s church-plan exemption no matter who established the plan, “exhibits three textualist pathologies that we textualists should cure ourselves of:  conflating literal meaning with legal meaning, overconfidence about what a statute literally means, and overaggressive application of the anti-surplusage canon.”
  • In The University of Pennsylvania’s Regulatory Review, law student Justin Daniel discusses the court’s decision this term in Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which held that a five-year statute of limitations on SEC actions imposing penalties also applied to actions seeking disgorgement.
  • In Nassau Lawyer, Laura Ferrugiari and Timothy Mahoney consider the practical implications “for school districts and parents alike” of the Supreme Court’s decision this term in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, in which the justices raised the bar for what constitutes an educational benefit for children with disabilities.
  • For the Associated Press, Sharon Cohen and Adam Geller report on how “several big [Supreme Court] cases over the last dozen years [that] have narrowed the instances in which those who commit offenses under age 18 can be subject to the harshest penalties” have affected the sentences of the defendants in those cases.
  • In The Washington Post, Justin Moyer reports that, “[i]nspired by a recent Supreme Court ruling, two entrepreneurs offended by the n-word filed to trademark the epithet to keep it out of the hands of racists.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com