This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Artis v. District of Columbia, a civil-procedure case that involves the effect of a tolling provision in the federal supplemental-jurisdiction statute on litigants who want to pursue state-court claims after related federal claims have been dismissed. Robert Yablon previewed the case for this blog, and […]
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Artis v. District of Columbia, a civil-procedure case that involves the effect of a tolling provision in the federal supplemental-jurisdiction statute on litigants who want to pursue state-court claims after related federal claims have been dismissed. Robert Yablon previewed the case for this blog, and Kristina Hurley and Michael Iadevaia provide a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket also previews Artis, along with the two cases that will be argued next week. Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the case. At the ACS Blog, Jeffrey Mandell discusses an amicus brief filed on behalf of the District of Columbia by the state of Wisconsin, joined by 23 other states, that “attempts to constitutionalize the dispute, with broad implications.”
Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, which asks the justices to decide on the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status in a bankruptcy proceeding. Ronald Mann has this blog’s argument analysis. At Law360 (subscription required), Alex Wolf reports that “practitioners [are] hoping the justices will bring long-needed clarity” to the area.
On Monday the court heard argument in Wilson v. Sellers, which asks when a federal court in a habeas case should “look through” a summary state-court ruling to review the last reasoned state-court decision. Steve Vladeck analyzes the argument for this blog. For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that Monday’s other argument, in Ayestas v. Davis, which involves the standards for funding an investigation establishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a capital case, “took a semantic turn, … with the justices trying to make sense of the differences between two similar phrases. Additional coverage of the argument in Ayestas comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post.
For The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer reports that “[t]he Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from a man who wants to be able to legally marry his laptop, saying he cannot intervene in the court’s upcoming case involving a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding.” At Take Care, Joshua Matz describes an amicus brief he filed in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, with Roberta Kaplan and on behalf of a group of church-state scholars, arguing that “[g]ranting a mandatory constitutional exemption to a neutral and generally applicable civil rights law would destabilize free exercise doctrine and public accommodation laws nationwide” and “would also infringe on values of dignity and equality.”
- At NPR (audio), Nina Totenberg covers last week’s visit by six current or retired Supreme Court to their alma mater, Harvard Law School, as part of the law school’s bicentennial celebration.
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!