Thursday round-up

By on Jul 28, 2016 at 10:51 am

Briefly:

  • For Forbes, George Leef discusses last month’s denial of review in Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, in which owners of a Washington pharmacy challenged a state rule requiring pharmacies to sell certain abortifacient drugs.
  • At Medium, Senator Dianne Feinstein calls for Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court and on twenty other pending judicial nominations.
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman identifies what he characterizes as “three, somewhat calculated shifts” in the voting patterns of Chief Justice John Roberts.
  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports on an order by Chief Justice John Roberts in a high-stakes generic-drug dispute, which “cleared the way for a maker of generic drugs to sell cheaper versions of two highly profitable birth-control pills that are now sold only under brand names.”
  • Rachel Donadio of The New York Times reports that yesterday Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over a mock appeal of Shylock and two other characters from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in Venice’s Scuola Grande di San Rocco.
  • A podcast at Advice and Consent discusses how the Republican and Democratic Parties handled the issue of judicial nominations at their respective conventions, as well as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments on the upcoming presidential election.

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:

Petition of the day

By on Jul 27, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-35

Issue: Whether all (or nearly all) law enforcement officers are “public officials” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Wednesday round-up

By on Jul 27, 2016 at 12:25 pm

Briefly:

  • Writing for this blog, Amy Howe covered yesterday’s filing by attorneys for a transgender student, who urged the Court not to block lower-court rulings that would allow the student, who identifies as a boy, to use the boys’ restroom at a Virginia high school while a dispute over the school board’s bathroom policy is litigated on the merits.
  • At Business Insurance, Stephanie Goldberg reports that Florida workers have asked the Court to review a challenge to the constitutionality of the state’s workers compensation system.
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston analyzes election pledges by Democratic candidates to overturn the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, describing them as a “vow that faces considerable odds.”

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:

A Virginia school board has “utterly failed” to show that it will suffer lasting harm if “G.G.,” a seventeen-year-old transgender student, is allowed to use the boys’ restroom until the Supreme Court can rule on the school board’s request to review the dispute on the merits, attorneys for the student told the Court in a filing today. Earlier this month, the Gloucester County school board had asked the Court to block both a federal district court’s preliminary order requiring the board to permit G.G. to use the boys’ restroom and an earlier ruling by a federal appeals court; Chief Justice John G. Roberts had instructed G.G.’s attorneys to respond to the board’s request by tomorrow afternoon.  (I covered the case and the board’s filing in a post for this blog.) Continue reading »

Tuesday round-up

By on Jul 26, 2016 at 7:43 am

In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports on the Court’s disclosure of “after-the-fact changes to its decisions”; Kent Scheidegger discusses Liptak’s story and the Court’s publication practices more generally at Crime and Consequences.

Briefly:

  • At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro and Randal John Meyer urge the Court to grant review in a case by a company dubbed “Uber in the sky.”
  • In The National Law Journal, Arthur Bryant argues that, although the Court’s ruling last Term in the class-action case Spokeo v. Robins was “technically . . . a victory for the company,” as a practical matter “it was a huge loss.”
  • At Casetext, David Boyle argues that “if a candidate wants the vote of thinking people, it might be best if that candidate weren’t advocating an amendment diminishing the Supreme Court and overturning Citizens United—especially if the candidate’s name is Hillary Clinton.”

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 Jul 25, 2016 at 11:11 pm

The petitions of the day are:

16-74

Issue: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s church plan exemption applies so long as a pension plan is maintained by an otherwise qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the plan.

16-86

Issue: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s church plan exemption applies so long as a pension is maintained by an otherwise qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the plan.

Event announcement

By on Jul 25, 2016 at 10:01 am

On August 4 at 12 p.m., the DC Bar will host the next installment of its monthly seminar series on issues and cases before the Court. Andrew Grossman and John Paul Schnapper-Casteras will focus on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, last Term’s challenge to the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process; this blog’s Amy Howe will serve as the moderator. Additional classes will be held on September 1 and October 6. More information and registration are available for the in-person presentation and the webinar.

 
Share:

Monday round-up

By on Jul 25, 2016 at 6:06 am

At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that last week the Obama administration “launched a nationwide plea for advice — technical, practical, legal and even religious — on ways to settle the bitter controversy over the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate,” and he suggests that these latest developments “appeared to be a sign that private talks with religious groups over the issue have not reached a solution.”  And at Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck discusses the request for information published by three federal agencies as part of the efforts to end the dispute, as well as the government’s request that the Court rehear the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy when it has all nine members.  Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-14

Issue: (1) What, if any, deference is due an agency’s interpretation when it predominately interprets terms of common law in which courts, not administrative agencies, have special competence; (2) whether the circuit court erred when it held, in contravention of this Court’s long-standing definition of “common carrier,” that pilots who use the Internet to communicate are “common carriers” when those pilots do not earn a commercial profit or indiscriminately offer to share their travel plans with the general public, thus warranting remand; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Federal Aviation Administration could, consistent with the First Amendment, lawfully discriminate against content-based Internet communications because of the message conveyed and the means chosen by pilots to convey it.

Shortly after Edward Sanford was confirmed as the Court’s seventy-second Justice in 1923, an Illinois newspaper observed that liberals were “quite as much pleased over” Sanford’s appointment as they were “distressed over that of Pierce Butler,” who had taken a seat on the Court less than a month before. “Liberals,” the paper continued, “in fact are claiming Judge Sanford as one of themselves just as they have claimed” Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis.

More recent assessments of Sanford’s tenure have him “leaning to the right, but only slightly,” as Russell Galloway writes in a 1984 review of the Taft Court. And an article by Stephanie Slater, published this month by the Journal of Supreme Court History, reports that Sanford has “generally been thought of as a staunch conservative.” This shift in reputation and the lack of scholarly attention paid to Sanford compared with other Justices from his era make Slater’s article and a companion piece by John Scheb very timely for examining Sanford’s life and clarifying his contribution to the Court’s jurisprudence.

Continue reading »

 
Share:
More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards