Briefly: Subscript offers a graphic explainer for SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, which asks whether the board adjudicating challenges to existing patents via the inter partes review process must issue a final written decision with regard to all of the claims raised by a challenger. At Legal Sports Report, Dustin Couker reports that the U.S. […]
- Subscript offers a graphic explainer for SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, which asks whether the board adjudicating challenges to existing patents via the inter partes review process must issue a final written decision with regard to all of the claims raised by a challenger.
- At Legal Sports Report, Dustin Couker reports that the U.S. solicitor general’s office will participate in oral argument on behalf of the sports leagues in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting.
- At the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, in which the justices will decide whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim.
- At Fa on First, Wen Fa calls Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which asks whether a Minnesota law banning political apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment, “a huge case for the First Amendment rights of voters nationwide, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.”
- At the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Douglas Berman considers “what the voting dynamics might reveal” in Monday’s cert denial in death-penalty case Reeves v. Alabama, which featured a lengthy dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan but not by Justice Stephen Breyer, who “would seem to be an obvious candidate to provide a fourth vote for taking this capital case up on its merits.”
- At Education Week’s Education and the Media blog, Mark Walsh reviews a short documentary about Gavin Grimm, the transgender student whose request to use the boys’ bathroom at his high school was the center of a high-profile, but short-lived, Supreme Court case last term, noting that Grimm explains in the film that his “case is not over—it’s now back in federal district court over issues such as standing given that he has graduated high school—but that he’s in the fight ‘for 10 years or more’ if that’s what it takes.”
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!