Petition of the day

By on Dec 19, 2014 at 10:15 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-435

Issue: Whether, under the Due Process Clause, a state court must have personal jurisdiction over an assailant to award a no-contact order, valid only within that state, to a victim of abuse who is domiciled in the state.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Breaking ranks with other federal appeals courts, and probably setting up a major test case for the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that laws imposing controls on the personal right to have a gun must satisfy the most rigorous constitutional test.  And, in another split with other courts, it was the first to strike down a federal gun law under the Constitution’s Second Amendment as expanded by the Supreme Court six years ago.

Since the Justices’ ruling in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, finding in the Second Amendment a guarantee of a right to have a gun for personal use, at least in some circumstances, federal courts have struggled with how to apply that ruling in specific cases testing specific gun laws.  Before the Sixth Circuit ruled, however, none had declared that gun laws should be judged by a “strict scrutiny” test.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Over the dissents of two Justices, the Supreme Court late Friday afternoon refused to delay — beyond January 5 — a federal judge’s order that would permit same-sex couples in Florida to marry after that day.

Neither the apparent majority of seven nor the two dissenters gave any explanation.  Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas simply noted that they would have granted the plea by state officials to extend the postponement beyond the early January date.

Continue reading »

Capture

Cameras in the Supreme Court and the importance of seeing government at work; whether audio provides sufficient access; and how the Internet affects thinking about the Court in public.

“I think always the humor was a means to an end. And the end is, to help folks who don’t live in this world understand why it matters.”

Dahlia Lithwick covers the Supreme Court and writes about law more broadly for Slate.com.  In this six-part interview, Ms. Lithwick discusses law school, practicing law, and how she began covering the Supreme Court; the tension among the media covering the Court, the Justices’ public presence and access to information; cameras in the Court; how to read the Court and the conflict between legal doctrine and the Court’s institutional position; and the Court’s struggle with questions (legal, institutional, and personal) of identity, especially in light of women on the Court and facing questions of gender.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Two of Colorado’s neighboring states, arguing that the legalization of marijuana for Coloradans is causing crime problems across state borders, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow them to file a lawsuit directly before the Justices.  If the suit goes forward, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s filing said, the Court should rule that the commercial part of the Colorado scheme is unconstitutional and could no longer be enforced.

Under the Constitution, states with legal complaints against other states have a right to sue them in the Supreme Court without first going through a lower court, but they need the Justices’ permission to do so.  Nebraska and Oklahoma chose that route, their filing said, because no other court can protect neighboring states from the impact of Colorado’s marijuana marketing law and rules.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Friday round-up

By on Dec 19, 2014 at 6:32 am

At ACSblog, Neil Kinkopf discusses the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who buy their health insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government.  He concludes that, “[b]ecause the usual statutory meaning also comports with the overall structure of the statute and its purpose and intent, King v. Burwell will be a very easy case indeed – if the Supreme Court reads the law to mean what it says.”  In another post at ACSblog, Jeremy Leaming collects some of the articles and blog posts responding to the challengers.  Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Dec 18, 2014 at 10:10 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-439

Issue: (1) Whether the exhaustion requirements of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank apply to any constitutional claim – including the procedural due-process claims in this case – when that claim shares facts in common with a possible Takings Clause claim; and (2) whether federal courts must impose special exhaustion requirements on Takings Clause claims even where, as here, the taking is “final.”

Two groups of Florida same-sex couples, anticipating a chance to get married in less than three weeks, urged the Supreme Court today not to delay that opportunity.  The Court, they argued, should continue its recent refusal to interfere with lower court rulings that have nullified state bans on same-sex marriage.  Two briefs opposing a request by state officials for more delay are here and here.

As of now, a lower court order is in effect postponing a federal trial judge’s ruling in favor of such marriages until January 5.  The state has an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but that court has refused to extend the order even though it has not yet ruled on the validity of Florida’s ban.

This particular dispute thus tests whether the Supreme Court will put off same-sex marriages in a state that is not yet under a federal appeals court decision striking down a state ban and setting a binding precedent for trial courts in the region, to give the appeals court for that area a chance to rule.

Continue reading »

Capture

What a Justice says and does not say in public; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent presence in the media; the line in a Justice’s mind between talking law and talking politics; the risk of talking to the media; and what to infer from a Justice’s choice to speak publicly.

“I think always the humor was a means to an end. And the end is, to help folks who don’t live in this world understand why it matters.”

Dahlia Lithwick covers the Supreme Court and writes about law more broadly for Slate.com.  In this six-part interview, Ms. Lithwick discusses law school, practicing law, and how she began covering the Supreme Court; the tension among the media covering the Court, the Justices’ public presence and access to information; cameras in the Court; how to read the Court and the conflict between legal doctrine and the Court’s institutional position; and the Court’s struggle with questions (legal, institutional, and personal) of identity, especially in light of women on the Court and facing questions of gender.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

The Relist Watch before Christmas

By on Dec 18, 2014 at 10:08 am

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases, with help from Clement Clarke Moore.

 

‘Twas the last Conference before break, when all through the land;

All the lawyers were waiting, petitions in hand;

Their eyes were trained on SCOTUSblog with care;

In hopes that cert. grants soon would be there.

 

Seven Justices were prepared to read opinions aloud;

(The rest were at Ole Miss, drawing a crowd.)

Ginsburg in her jabot; and I in my suit;

Were thinking of cases that would soon get the boot.

 

Continue reading »

 
Share:
More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards