Friday round-up

By on Aug 26, 2016 at 12:05 pm

Yesterday the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to leave in place a lower court ruling striking down North Carolina’s controversial election law, which included a requirement that voters provide a government-issued photo ID. Amy Howe covered the request for this blog, with other coverage coming from Lyle Denniston at his blog, Jessie Hellmann of The Hill, Pete Williams of NBC, and Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog.

Continue reading »

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Earlier this month, North Carolina asked the Justices to halt a lower-court ruling that blocked the implementation of its controversial 2013 election law – including provisions requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID, reducing the number of days when voters can go to the polls before Election Day, and eliminating preregistration for young voters.  The state told the Court that, unless it is allowed to apply those three provisions to the November 2016 general elections, there would be “voter confusion” and “consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.”  Continue reading »

Event announcement

By on Aug 26, 2016 at 10:25 am

On Thursday, September 1, at 12:00 p.m., the DC Bar will host a seminar on Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, a Missouri church’s challenge to its exclusion from a state program that provides funding for rubber playground surfaces. Hannah Smith from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Heather Weaver from the ACLU will serve as panelists, and this blog’s Amy Howe will moderate. More information and registration are available for the in-person presentation and the webinar.

 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on Aug 25, 2016 at 7:45 am

Mark Sherman of the Associated Press (via PBS NewsHour) looks at the presidential candidates’ positions on Supreme Court nominees, while at Real Clear Politics William Bennett argues that – although there are “many good reasons” to support Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump – “nothing on the home front is more important than the Supreme Court.” Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Aug 24, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-142

Issue: Whether 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) mandates joint and several liability among co-conspirators for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy.

Tuesday round-up

By on Aug 23, 2016 at 7:41 am

At Vox, Dylan Matthews contends that the “unfilled vacancy of Antonin Scalia’s seat combined with a Hillary Clinton victory in November could set the Court on a new course.”  At MinnPost, Paul Anderson – a retired state supreme court justice – argues that the “refusal of Senate Republicans to allow any hearing on the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court is a reckless and dangerous act.”   In The Atlantic, Barry Friedman analyzes Scalia’s legacy on policy and concludes that “a new president could change the constitutional law of policing more dramatically than it has been in decades.”  Finally, at CNN, Joan Biskupic looks back at Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s path to the Court thirty-five years ago and suggests that it “demonstrates how a long-odds nominee gets skillfully positioned to enjoy the luck of presidential selection.” Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:11 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-95

Issue: Whether an arbitration clause that does not expressly address the availability of class or collective arbitration is sufficient to defer the question of the availability of class or collective arbitration to an arbitrator to decide.

Monday round-up

By on Aug 22, 2016 at 6:48 am

In The New York Times, Alan Rappeport reports that “Democrats are planning to redouble their efforts to make the fate of the Supreme Court a signature election issue,” while Morgan Lee of the Associated Press (via Deseret News) reports on recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who indicated that “split 4-4 decisions by the short-handed high court have left important public policy issues up in the air, including the president’s immigration plan, that are likely to be revisited by the court in the future.”  And in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that neither Ginsburg “— the court’s oldest member, and so the one most often in the will-she-go spotlight — nor anyone else is preparing to step down soon.”

Briefly:

  • In The Washington Post, DeNeen Brown interviews Cecilia “Cissy” Marshall, the wife of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.
  • At Nahmod Law, Sheldon Nahmod discusses the amicus brief that he filed in Manuel v. City of Joliet, in which the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure allows a malicious prosecution claim.

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petitions of the day

By on Aug 19, 2016 at 11:19 pm

The petitions of the day are:

16-135

Issue: (1) Whether, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as applied to a confirmation action to enforce a foreign arbitration award, a foreign forum is per se inadequate because assets in the United States cannot be attached by a foreign court, as the D.C. Circuit has held; or is adequate if it has jurisdiction and there are assets of the defendant in the alternative forum, as the Second Circuit held; and (2) whether, under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, the public policy in favor of arbitration yields where confirmation of an arbitral award would be contrary to the countervailing public policies such as international comity and the policy against tax evasion.

16-136

Issue: (1) Whether, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as applied to a confirmation action to enforce a foreign arbitral award, a foreign forum is per se inadequate because assets in the United States cannot be attached by a foreign court, as the D.C. Circuit has held; or whether forum non conveniens remains a viable doctrine in foreign arbitration confirmation actions if the foreign forum has jurisdiction and there are some assets of the defendant available in the alternative forum, as the Second Circuit held; and (2) whether, under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, public policy in favor of arbitration yields where confirmation of an arbitral award would be contrary to countervailing public policies such as constitutional separation of powers principles, combating government corruption, and/or international comity.

Friday round-up

By on Aug 19, 2016 at 10:38 am

Briefly:

  • At the Fed Soc Blog, Brian Miller argues that, although Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (the challenge to fees paid by public employees who are represented by a union to which they do not belong, on which the Court deadlocked last Term)  “was – and still is– derided in the media and by its legal opponents as a thinly veiled conservative attempt to ‘weaponize’ the First Amendment as a vehicle to advance conservative policies,” there is in fact “a trend to look at First Amendment issues through a partisan lens – but conservatives aren’t behind it.”
  • In another post (podcast) at the Fed Soc Blog, Thomas Berg, Christopher Lund, and Marty Lederman discuss Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, in which the Court will consider whether a church’s exclusion from a state-run program that provides non-profits with funds to resurface their playgrounds using recycled tire scraps violates the Constitution.
  • In The Economist, Steven Mazie argues that, although Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s pledge to reverse the effects of the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC is a “worthy” goal, “and her proposals to increase transparency and establish a federal matching programme for small donations are both promising and plausible,” “her more ambitious plan is guaranteed to come up short.”
  • In The Huffington Post, Cristian Farias reports that, even “as Gov. Pat McCrory (R) is imploring the Supreme Court to put the” Fourth Circuit’s ruling striking down North Carolina’s 2013 election law “on hold, the North Carolina Republican Party is acting as if the decision never happened.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

 

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:
More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards