Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

Our coverage of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is available at this link.

The Supreme Court released the argument calendar for its November sitting, which begins on Monday, October 29. During the six days of the November sitting, the justices will hear oral arguments in 12 cases, involving topics that range from the proper method of service for a foreign country to pre-emption by the Atomic Energy Act.

The November sitting kicks off with two oral arguments involving the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales asks the justices to decide whether the act allows a court to decline to enforce an arbitration agreement that gives the arbitrator the power to decide questions about arbitrability if the court believes that the arbitrability claim is “wholly groundless.” And in the second argument of the day, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the court will consider whether the act bars a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would allow class arbitration, even when the agreement itself does not mention class arbitration.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

We’re launching a new series aimed at helping law students survive the best/worst three years of their lives. In this episode, we’ll talk about study groups, thinking like your professor and the best food-related way to make it through an exam.

Posted in First Mondays
 
Share:

Monday round-up

By on Aug 20, 2018 at 6:56 am

For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro identifies “several factors that could make it difficult for Brett Kavanaugh—if he is confirmed by the Senate—to hit the ground running” when the new Supreme Court term begins on October 1. For USA Today, Richard Wolf explains that that “[b]ecause he would replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy, who occasionally sided with the court’s liberal wing, Kavanaugh particularly could shift the balance on cases involving abortion, capital punishment, racial discrimination and gay rights.”

In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Becket Adams observes that “Americans increasingly want the Senate to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.” In an op-ed at Fox News, Carrie Severino remarks that Democratic senators up for re-election in red states are “in a tight spot” when deciding how to vote on the Kavanaugh nomination because “[t]heir constituents strongly favor the judge’s confirmation and recognize that critical issues are at stake with the appointment of the next justice to the Supreme Court.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petitions of the week

By on Aug 17, 2018 at 11:26 am

This week we highlight cert petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the scope of Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex” with regard to transgender individuals, the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the context of plea negotiations, and the constitutional consequences of waiving a state-law right to have a jury make an advisory sentencing recommendation in a capital case.

The petitions of the week are:

18-106

Issues: (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge; and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when a federal prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge in federal court when the defendant has already been charged with the same offense in state court.

18-107

Issues: (1) Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964; and (2) whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees’ sex rather than their gender identity.

18-113

Issue: Whether waiving a state-law right to have a jury make an advisory sentencing recommendation constitutes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the federal constitutional right to have a jury make all requisite findings for the imposition of death, particularly when the latter right did not exist at the time of the waiver.

Friday round-up

By on Aug 17, 2018 at 7:11 am

At CNN, Lauren Fox and others report that “Senate Democrats are threatening to sue for documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record, the latest escalation in a partisan battle over the court.” Burgess Everett reports at Politico that “[t]he potential lawsuit would come right as Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings begin in early September.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, who calls the threat “one of the few procedural weapons Democrats can use to slow progress on a Supreme Court confirmation some see as inevitable.” At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “[t]he National Archives is distancing itself from President George W. Bush’s legal team as both groups work to hand over hundreds of thousands of documents tied to … Kavanaugh.” In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Matt Mackowiack maintains that “[t]he record will show that Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, is leading the most transparent confirmation process of all time.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Judge Kavanaugh on work law

By on Aug 16, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Charlotte Garden is an associate professor at Seattle University School of Law.

This post analyzes Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s most significant work-law opinions. Although several are already receiving attention and analysis – especially his dissent in a case that arose after a killer whale killed a trainer – Kavanaugh has drafted dozens of other opinions in labor and employment-discrimination cases. Overall, these opinions reflect that Kavanaugh tends to interpret narrowly the limits that work law places on employers, resulting in judicial and agency deference to employers’ decisions. For example, Kavanaugh has interpreted statutes or controlling Supreme Court cases in ways that exclude certain workers from coverage or bar certain types of claims. When he writes in cases in which he parts ways with his colleagues, it is often because he has a more employer-friendly view of the law than they do.

Continue reading »

Thursday round-up

By on Aug 16, 2018 at 7:00 am

For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[f]or three eventful years of George W. Bush’s presidency – involving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, battles over abortion and immigration, and two Supreme Court vacancies – Brett Kavanaugh held one of the most important jobs in the White House,” but “as the Senate considers Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, his work as staff secretary – described by others who have held the job as the president’s inbox and outbox – remains a black hole.” For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim reports that “[h]ow the Republican majority is handling Kavanaugh’s extensive records has infuriated Democrats,” noting that “what makes the fight for Kavanaugh’s records unusual is that the National Archives, which has played a central role for previous nominees in vetting their White House papers and sending them to the Senate, has effectively been sidelined.” In commentary at National Review, Ed Whelan explains why, “[o]n any sensible application of the cost-benefit analysis that always properly shapes the Senate’s demand for documents, demanding the staff secretary documents would be insane.” Thomas Jipping maintains in an op-ed at the Washington Examiner that “senators already have what [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer said they need, a complete record of the most relevant and revelatory material from Kavanaugh’s legal career.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Aug 15, 2018 at 6:50 am

At CNN, Lauren Fox reports that “[t]wo red state Democrats are scheduled to meet [today] with President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, highly anticipated meetings that could set the tone for where some of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats land on appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.” According to Seung Min Kim for The Washington Post, “the White House is warning that time is running short for Democratic leaders to schedule sit-downs with the judge before his confirmation hearings next month.” Jordain Carney reports at The Hill that “[l]iberal activists are pressing Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other prominent members of the caucus to publicly and privately pressure the red-state Democrats to oppose Kavanaugh.” At Fox News, Chad Pergram reports that “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is getting help from an old Senate hand as he seeks to navigate the chamber ahead of his confirmation hearing — tapping into a long tradition of nominees using ‘sherpas’ to find their way.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Aaron Nielson is an associate law professor at Brigham Young University and the weekly author of D.C. Circuit Review–Reviewed at the Notice & Comment Blog.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is an unusual court. Because it disproportionately hears lawsuits involving the United States, it often wades into the “famously murky” waters of the political-question doctrine, as well as the equally murky doctrines of standing, final agency action, and ripeness and mootness. In fact, the local rules require parties in “direct review” cases—cases in which challenges to an administrative agency action must be brought directly in the D.C. Circuit, instead of in a district court first—to address standing. All of these issues involve questions of justiciability: whether, as a threshold matter, a federal court has the authority at all to decide the legal merits of a case. I can attest, moreover, that the D.C. Circuit takes justiciability seriously. When I was a clerk, a judge promised to take any clerk to lunch who found a meritorious, unbriefed justiciability issue.

It is safe to say that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has spent untold hours thinking about justiciability. When I teach the political question doctrine, I assign the en banc decision in El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States, a case I discuss below about a 1998 U.S. missile strike on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Kavanaugh’s concurrence is well worth your time.

Continue reading »

Although the battle over records related to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House continues, the Senate Judiciary Committee has recently released over 100,000 pages of documents. The first batch of documents, released last week, contained over 5,000 pages of emails from Kavanaugh’s stint as an associate White House counsel, a position in which he served from January 2001 until 2003. Hundreds (if not thousands) of pages from the initial batch of documents are completely nonsubstantive, made up of – for example – email headers from mass emails and computerized legal alerts to which Kavanaugh subscribed. Many other emails are somewhat cryptic, giving the distinct impression that staffers were trying to avoid getting into too much substantive discussion over email. But the emails also provide a detailed look into the operation of the White House counsel’s office, including the extent to which the lawyers’ work is often enmeshed with politics. And the emails are likely to provide fodder for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Kavanaugh about his role in the Bush administration’s war on terror when the confirmation hearing begins in early September.

Continue reading »

More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards