Petition of the day

By on Dec 15, 2017 at 4:00 pm

The petition of the day is:

17-770

Issue: Whether a claim that parties to a collective bargaining agreement have violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to seize work controlled by employers outside the bargaining unit through coercion that violates the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4)(B) and 158(e), is barred as a matter of law by application of the nonstatutory labor exemption.

How the Grinch stole relists

By on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:19 pm

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists, after a fashion.

Every Nerd

Down in Nerd-ville

Liked relists a lot …

But the Grinch,

Who lived just south of Nerd-ville,

Did NOT!

The Grinch hated relists! The whole relist thingy!

Now, please don’t ask why. Who can tell with that ninny?

It could be his head wasn’t screwed on just right.

It could be, perhaps, his work schedule’s too tight.

But I think what may have most rankled the rube,

Was he was sick of the search for sight gags on YouTube.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of David M. O’Brien’s  “Justice Robert H. Jackson’s Unpublished Opinion in Brown v. Board” (University Press of Kansas, 2017, pp. 220).

David O’Brien is the Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer Professor at the University of Virginia. He was a judicial fellow and research associate at the U.S. Supreme Court. O’Brien is the author of numerous books and over 100 articles, including “Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics” (11th ed. W.W. Norton), which received the ABA’s Silver Gavel Award, and a two-volume casebook, “Constitutional Law and Politics” (10th ed., W.W. Norton 2017).

Welcome, David, and thank you for taking the time to participate in this question-and-answer exchange for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your latest book, which is quite extensive in its examination of Justice Robert Jackson’s views on Brown v. Board of Education.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Friday round-up

By on Dec 15, 2017 at 7:02 am

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that “[a] group of foreign lawyers wants the U.S. Supreme Court to look to the English roots of the Sixth Amendment and the duties of counsel in other countries today when it considers the case of an American death row inmate” in McCoy v. Louisiana, a capital case scheduled for oral argument in January.
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “break down the latest orders from SCOTUS (including a wife-swapping case and political gerrymandering in Maryland).”
  • In an op-ed for Forbes, Richard Samp looks at the aftermath of last term’s decision in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, in which the court ruled that New York’s credit-card surcharge ban regulates speech and remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the ban violates the First Amendment; he argues that the appeals court’s decision to delay a ruling on the merits by certifying a question to the New York Court of Appeals “betrays a thinly disguised hostility to the First Amendment claims at issue.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Ethan Blevins urges the justices to “grant Brott v. United States, a case about whether property owners are entitled to a jury when the federal government takes their land,” arguing that “[a] jury is key when it comes to compensation questions because the government has an obvious conflict of interest in appraising ‘fair’ market value.”
  • For NBC News, Alexandra Campbell Howe reports on efforts by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sits on the board of iCivics, an educational nonprofit founded by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, to “mak[e] a game available in Spanish that teaches U.S. civics in a more approachable and engaging way.”

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!

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petitions of the day

By on Dec 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm

The petitions of the day are:

17-765

Issue: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

17-766

Issue: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Priscilla J. Smith is a clinical lecturer in law at Yale Law School.

Don’t ask me why, but I’ve been moved of late to look for common ground with ideological opponents. Perhaps it is the aging process, a desire for a quieter life, or living with daily reminders of obnoxious (add whatever adjective here you’d like: offensive, illegal, disgusting, or off-color, unwise, intemperate) behavior by friends and foes alike. Recently I had the pleasure (?) of testifying at a Congressional hearing involving (mostly) men yelling at each other (and at me), that ended early because of what the chair called a “lack of decency” among committee members. Indeed.

First, let’s set the stage by getting your mind off abortion for a second. Consider an advertisement posted by Christian Scientists, without affiliation, stating “Chest Pain, Blood Loss, Broken Bones? Medical Treatment at Exit 8!” and directing patients to an office where they receive only prayers for healing. Surely the government could act to prevent harm to patients before it occurs, especially if the Christian Scientists have compounded the deception by designing the office to look like a medical facility, with employees in lab coats collecting patients’ health information, suggesting that medical treatment is available, just behind the curtain. A simple disclosure on the ad and at the clinic stating that the clinic is not a licensed medical provider and has no licensed medical personnel available to provide treatment would be very little to ask. And this would be so whether or not the Christian Scientists offered their prayers or “counseling” for free. In fact, a sign saying “Free Emergency Medical Treatment Offered Here!” only increases the power of the fraud by targeting it at low-income individuals desperate for medical care.

Continue reading »

Mark L. Rienzi is a professor of law at The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.

The First Amendment’s protections for minority speakers are most needed — and most in jeopardy — when the speech relates to deeply important and deeply controversial issues. When the speech in question matters most, the temptation toward government control is greatest. This is true both for the political branches the First Amendment is designed to restrain and, more dangerously, for the judges charged with its enforcement.

Thus it is no surprise that abortion-related speech cases like National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra arrive on the Supreme Court’s docket from time to time. Too often, courts in such cases are either tempted or overwhelmed by the abortion-related aspects of a case and fail to apply straightforward First Amendment principles. That pattern is a danger to all speakers, as abortion-related First Amendment errors can distort the doctrine more broadly.

Continue reading »

Thursday round-up

By on Dec 14, 2017 at 7:22 am

At The Federalist, Margot Cleveland notes that although the justices denied cert this week in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, which asks whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, “[t]he Supreme Court … will need to eventually resolve the circuit split and it’s likely to have that opportunity soon.” Lisa Keen discusses the cert denial in Evans at Keen News Service.

In two posts at the Election Law Blog, Nicholas Stephanopolous comments on the term’s two partisan gerrymandering cases, Gill v. Whitford, a Democratic challenge to Wisconsin’s statewide electoral maps, and Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge by Republican voters to a single congressional district in Maryland. Stephanopolous maintains here that “had the plaintiffs [in Benisek] attacked Maryland’s entire congressional map, they (likely) would have been entitled to prevail under the test adopted by the Whitford trial court.” Here, he elaborates on the convergences and divergences between the plaintiffs’ approaches in the two cases.
Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Dec 13, 2017 at 7:15 pm

The petition of the day is:

17-755

Issue: Whether proof that a tax scheme violates the dormant commerce clause by favoring in-state interests over out-of-state interests, and thereby advantages some competitors over others within the same market, is sufficient to entitle the disfavored competitors to a remedy.

Julie Rikelman is the senior director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Is there a First Amendment right to deceive the public about the services that a business provides, simply because those services involve reproductive health care? That is the central question in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a case about provisions in the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act.

California’s FACT Act ensures that women who are seeking time-sensitive reproductive health care services and end up at a crisis pregnancy center can quickly determine whether they have, quite literally, come to the wrong place. CPCs are a multi-million-dollar industry and exist in every state throughout the country; there are thousands of CPCs nationwide and approximately 200 CPCs in California alone. Further, many CPCs are affiliated with national umbrella organizations that provide administrative, strategic and technical support. NIFLA is one such organization. Specifically, NIFLA assists CPCs with undergoing “medical conversions,” as well as with legal advice on avoiding tort liability. Other umbrella organizations, such as Care Net, Heartbeat and the Vitae Foundation, provide a range of advertising support. As NIFLA acknowledges in its cert petition to the Supreme Court, its centers “operate according to their religious views” on reproductive decisions, including on contraception, single parenthood and abortion. No one contends that the CPCs and their staff lack First Amendment protection for their views or that they cannot seek to persuade others to share those views through lawful means.

Continue reading »

More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards