Civility and collegiality continued to be a theme in the Supreme Court justices’ appearances this month. On a December 7 visit to Duquesne University, Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounted a conversation about civility with the other justices. Previous justices were at times openly hostile to one another, and the court’s current era of collegiality is perhaps more of an exception than the rule. According to Sotomayor, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was in large part responsible for this change, initiating traditions such as justice lunches and making sure to speak to Chief Justice John Roberts, before she left the bench, about the importance of maintaining collegiality. Coverage of the event, where Sotomayor received the Honorable Carol Los Mansmann Award for distinguished public service, comes from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Continue reading »
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!
How better to wrap up the calendar year than by examining the president’s take on his relationship with the Supreme Court – especially because the court was one of President Donald Trump’s favorite topics of discussion this past year? These references ranged from the specific to the general and from praise to criticism. Many of the tropes are likely familiar. There was commentary on the Supreme Court vacancy after Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, more about Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation process, and a smattering of comments on a wider spectrum of issues ranging from the remaining justices to specific cases. FactBa.se is a helpful resource that compiles Trump’s comments by cataloging speech transcripts as well as tweets and making them publicly searchable.
Trump’s comments often coincided with various Supreme Court-related events in which he had a vested interest. Overall, and after eliminating duplicate observations, Trump made some 280 public comments in which he mentioned the Supreme Court between December 22, 2017, and December 22, 2018. The frequency of these references by date is displayed below.
Click graph to enlarge.
Continue reading »
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutional adequacy of the “aggravating circumstances” used by a state to sentence a person to death, the scope of a defendant’s Sixth and 14th Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and whether the use of a name is a “means of identification of another person” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
The petitions of the week are:
18-640
Issue: Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth and 14th Amendment right to conflict-free counsel when his lawyer is paid by a third party; the third party threatens to withhold payment unless the lawyer conducts the defense in a manner that serves the third party’s interests; the lawyer does not inform his client or the court of the conflict; and the lawyer in fact conducts the defense in a manner that serves the third-party payer’s interests and sacrifices the client’s interests.
18-679
Issues: (1) Whether certain of the “aggravating circumstances” used by Idaho to determine whether a defendant may be sentenced to death—those that ask whether the crime was especially “heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity”; whether the defendant exhibited “utter disregard for human life”; and whether the defendant “has exhibited a propensity to commit murder”—fail to provide sentencing juries with constitutionally adequate guidance; and (2) whether Idaho’s felony-murder aggravating circumstance, which substantially duplicates Idaho’s felony-murder statute, violates the constitutional requirement that Idaho sufficiently narrow the class of persons subject to the death penalty.
18-682
Issue: Whether the use of a name, without more, constitutes the use of a “means of identification of another person” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
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.]
Continue reading »
The Supreme Court is defined, in part, by court-watchers – those who chronicle its workings and analyze its jurisprudence. Our understanding of the court depends on scholars such as David M. O’Brien, the late Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer Professor at the University of Virginia’s Department of Politics.
O’Brien, who died from lung cancer on December 20 at the age of 67, was among the most noted Supreme Court scholars of his time.
Born on August 30, 1951, O’Brien grew up in Southern California and received his B.A. and Ph.D. in political science from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He then traveled east to work at the Supreme Court. Between 1982 and 1984, he served first as a Supreme Court fellow and then as a research associate for Chief Justice Warren Burger.
Continue reading »
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!
Merry Christmas Eve! We at First Mondays have gotten you all the gift we know you’ve been wishing for: an unlocked bonus episode that was previous released exclusively to our Patreon backers.
Last June, Dan Epps interviewed our first judicial guests at the Arizona State Bar Convention. Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and former Chief Justice Ruth McGregor of the Arizona Supreme Court join us to talk about their careers, as well as their memories from their time as Supreme Court clerks.
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that on Saturday “the Supreme Court was asked to step into a clash over a grand jury subpoena that is widely believed to be related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into interference in the 2016 election,” when, “[i]n a filing made under seal, an unnamed corporation … apparently asked the justices to block the subpoena after the lower courts refused to do so”; on Sunday Chief Justice John Roberts put a temporary hold on the district court’s order, giving the government until December 31 to respond. Additional coverage comes from Katelyn Polantz at CNN, who reports that “[t]his is the first known legal challenge apparently related to Mueller’s investigation to make its way to the Supreme Court.” At Law.com, Tony Mauro observes that if the case reaches the Supreme Court on the merits, past history suggests that the justices are not likely to “clear their court chamber like the D.C. Circuit did, and leave the public and press outside, scratching their heads.”
Continue reading »
UPDATE: On Sunday evening, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the district court’s order requiring the foreign corporation to comply with the grand jury subpoena or pay penalties. In a brief order, the chief justice directed the government to respond by noon on December 31 and indicated that the district court’s order would remain on hold until the government’s response is filed and either he or the full court takes additional action.
This afternoon the Supreme Court was asked to step into a clash over a grand jury subpoena that is widely believed to be related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into interference in the 2016 election. In a filing made under seal, an unnamed corporation – owned by a foreign country identified in the lower court only as “Country A” – apparently asked the justices to block the subpoena after the lower courts refused to do so. The case had been kept under wraps when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument last week, with courthouse security officers not only closing the hearing to the public but also locking down an entire floor of the courthouse. Continue reading »
Submit Event
