The D.C. Circuit Court’s deeply-set refusal to let  federal judges oversee government decisions on which detainees may or may not leave Guantanamo Bay has now reached the longest-running effort to keep a detainee from being sent to another country over his protest.   In a one-page order released late Thursday, the Circuit Court dismissed outright the case of an Algerian national, Ahmed Belbacha, who has been trying for more than two years to head off his involuntary return to his home country, where he fears torture or even death.

Read the rest of this entry »

NOTE TO READERS:  The following is an update on a post published earlier Friday.

—————-

The Ninth Circuit Court refused on Friday to put the constitutional test over Arizona’s authority to control illegal aliens living within its borders on the especially fast schedule that the state had asked, adopting instead a plan that follows its normal pace for handling cases of this kind.  A panel of the Court refused to “expedite the appeal beyond” what Circuit Court rules specified, thus agreeing with the Justice Department (see the post below the jump).  The Court’s order is here.

Under the schedule that now will apply, the merits briefing will be completed by Oct. 7, and the oral argument will be held during the week of Nov. 1; it will be held in San Francisco.  It thus is clear that there will be no ruling by the Circuit Court on a case that has very heavy political overtones until after the nation casts its votes in a new congressional election on Nov. 2.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a rare commentary by a member of the Supreme Court on Senate hearings for a potential colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday sought to correct the views of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who recently suggested that foreign law has no place in America’s legal principles.   In a speech at American University in Washington (the full text is here), Ginsburg said flatly that it is “very wrong…to charge that citing foreign law is a recent heresy advanced by liberal activist judges in pursuit of their political preferences.”  And, without naming names among senators, she used questions and comments by lawmakers at Justice-designate Elena Kagan’s nomination hearings to illustrate the error she perceived.

Read the rest of this entry »

Coverage continues of Senate Democrats’ failure to block a Republican filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act, a legislative response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At ACSblog, Jeffrey D. Clements discusses the filibuster of the Act, lamenting that “a minority of Senators representing a fraction of the American people killed even the modest response of requiring reporting and disclosure of corporate political spending, and restricting such spending by certain foreign corporations and government contractors.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s editorial board suggests that Democrats seek “more disclosure in campaign financing” by “confer[ring] closely with willing moderate Republicans.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jay Bookman instead proposes a terse constitutional amendment: “A corporation or union is not a natural person.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine became the fourth Republican senator to announce that she would vote in favor of Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.  Brief coverage of Snowe’s announcement is available at the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog, the Ninth Justice, the Boston Globe, and CQ Politics.  The editorial board of the Washington Times questions Snowe’s public assurance that Kagan regards the Court’s recent decisions in Heller and McDonald as “settled law,” suggesting that Kagan will instead “follow the same path” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in McDonald.  The Caucus blog of the New York Times calls the announcement unsurprising, given Snowe’s earlier votes for Sotomayor and for Kagan as Solicitor General.  The Times also has an infographic with a running tally of committed Republican votes in the Senate.

Read the rest of this entry »

FURTHER UPDATE 5:55 p.m.  The state of Arizona has now filed in the Ninth Circuit Court a motion for expedited briefing and hearing of its appeal of Judge Susan Bolton’s order Wednesday partially blocking the state’s new alien control law.  The motion in Arizona v. U.S. (Circuit docket 10-16645) can be read here.  It seeks to have all briefing completed by Sept. 2 and an oral argument the week of Sept. 13.

——————
UPDATE Thursday 3:45 p.m.  The state of Arizona began the process of appealing this case to the Ninth Circuit Court by the formal filing of its notice, found here.  State officials have said they will seek expedited review at the Circuit Court and will pursue the case to the Supreme Court, if necessary.  (In the Ninth Circuit, the case is now docketed as 10-16645.)

—————

The constitutional fight over Arizona’s new alien control law appeared Wednesday to be headed toward higher courts after a federal judge in that state blocked four significant parts of the law from going into effect as scheduled early Thursday.  Enforcement of a number of other sections was allowed — partly because the U.S. government did not challenge some, and partly because its attempt to stop others was rejected by the judge.  Whether the dispute will reach the Supreme Court is not yet clear.

State officials have the options of pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, or returning to the state legislature to try to salvage the main parts of the law by rewriting them.  As of now, an appeal seems the more likely option, giving state officials promise to vigorously defend the law at all levels.  At this point, the blocked sections of the law have not been struck down; rather, they are simply on hold while the constitutional case proceeds in U.S. District Court. Even so, appeals may be pursued if they challenge the specific order issued Wednesday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton of Phoenix.  (Below the jump are specifics of what was enjoined, and what was allowed to take effect.)

Read the rest of this entry »

A book released last week, In Brown’s Wake, examines the legacies of Brown v. Board of Education in perhaps unexpected places: in struggles for the integration of non-racial identity groups, in social science, and abroad.  The author, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, kindly agreed to an interview on the book for SCOTUSblog.

The transcript of the first half of our interview follows the jump; the second half will be published later this week.

Read the rest of this entry »

Through Sunday, August 15, we are continuing to accept applications for both blog internships. Through Saturday, August 7, we are accepting applications for the job opening for a special assistant to Tom Goldstein/Howe & Russell office manager/SCOTUSblog staff member.   See instructions and requirements for applying here (for the internships) and here (for the paid position).

To answer a frequently asked question, the internships are not restricted to law students.  If you are not currently enrolled in any academic program, please send your most recent academic transcript.