Screen Shot 2015-01-28 at 10.20.31 AMIt looks like 2015 might be the year of books on the Justices, mainly the female members of the Supreme Court.

Cambridge University Press has just released a book on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That book, edited by Scott Dodson, has contributions by journalists, scholars, judges, and practicing lawyers, including Tom Goldstein, Lani Guinier, Robert A. Katzmann, Herma Hill Kay, Dahlia Lithwick, Reva Siegel, Nina Totenberg and Joan Williams, among others.

Linda Hirshman (a retired professor of philosophy and law) likewise has a forthcoming book, one on Justices Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor.

Continue reading »

Posted in Book Reviews
 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Jan 28, 2015 at 7:47 am

The death penalty is at the forefront of coverage of and commentary on the Court right now.  Writing for this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on yesterday’s order by the Court allowing Georgia to execute inmate Warren Hill, while at USA Today Richard Wolf looks at the Court and capital punishment issues more broadly.  At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie focuses on the case of the three Oklahoma inmates whose challenge the Court agreed to hear last week; he contends that “[t]he conundrum facing these three Oklahoma inmates rivals anything written by Kafka. Although the court recognises that their case has merit, they all may be executed anyway.”  And at Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston has more on the Court and the Oklahoma lethal injection case. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jan 27, 2015 at 10:15 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-342

Issue: Whether Sixth Circuit precedent which precludes judicial review of the administrative sanction disqualifying petitioners from further participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program should be reversed because the express language of 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(15) permits de novo judicial review of “the questioned administrative action in issue” and because the Sixth Circuit precedent conflicts with other circuits which have reviewed the issue.

UPDATED 8:25 p.m.  Georgia completed the execution of Warren Hill, with death pronounced at 7:55 p.m.

—————-

In two brief orders allowing the state of Georgia to execute a man whose lawyers claim he is intellectually disabled, the Supreme Court gave a strong signal on Tuesday evening that it is not undertaking a general review of capital punishment this Term.  Two Justices dissented from one of the two orders permitting the execution of Warren L. Hill, Jr.; there were no noted dissents from the other order.

Hill has attempted repeatedly to challenge the constitutionality of Georgia’s procedure for determining when a death-row inmate is too intellectually disabled to be put to death: it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that disability.  In his latest plea to the Justices, he asked that the Court apply to his case a 2014 ruling, in the case of Hall v. Florida, putting new limits on state authority to execute those with intellectual disabilities.   The Court gave no reason on Tuesday for turning down both of his new pleas.

Continue reading »

Posted in Featured
 
Share:

Beginning on February 1, the Supreme Court will publicly disclose documents on actions it is considering or taking to discipline lawyers who are members of its bar, a process long shielded in privacy, the Court announced on Tuesday.  Currently, that file is treated as confidential, although final disciplinary actions are made public along with regular orders on pending cases. In the new arrangement, attorneys involved in a case may ask to keep their response confidential, in whole or in part.

Under the new disclosure policy, the Court’s announcement made clear, public availability of that docket will be the general rule.  It will apply to documents filed after February 1.  But if there are reasons to keep an attorney’s response confidential, that will be considered on a case-by-case basis, if sought by the lawyer involved.  Typically, a lawyer is notified that potential disciplinary action is being considered by way of a “show cause” order, to which the lawyer then has a chance to respond and to argue against a disciplinary order. Continue reading »

Posted in Featured
 
Share:

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer on Tuesday refused to order a quick release of the Court’s new ruling in the Copaxone drug patent case, but he left open the option for the generic companies to ask another Justice to take the step.  Breyer did not issue an opinion as he denied prompt implementation of the ruling last week in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz(An earlier post on this dispute is here.)

Continue reading »

Tuesday round-up

By on Jan 27, 2015 at 7:25 am

Yesterday the Justices issued one opinion in an argued case, vacating and remanding the decision of the Sixth Circuit in M&G Polymers v. Tackett, a dispute between an employer and its retired employees over the vesting of health-care benefits.  Ronald Mann covered the decision for this blog; other coverage comes from Jess Bravin in The Wall Street Journal, David Savage in the Los Angeles Times, and Hera Arsen at the Ogletree Deakins blog.

Other coverage of the Court focuses on the fall-out from the Court’s announcement last week that it would review a challenge by a group of Oklahoma death-row inmates to the state’s lethal-injection protocol — specifically, the state’s announcement yesterday that it would seek to delay the executions of three prisoners but at the same time keep open the possibility of resuming executions if it can establish a new lethal-injection protocol.  Lyle Denniston reported on those developments for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jess Bravin and Nathan Koppel of The Wall Street Journal and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jan 26, 2015 at 10:25 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-585

Issue: Whether New Orleans's tour-guide licensing requirements violate the First Amendment.

Event announcement

By on Jan 26, 2015 at 7:00 pm

On February 5 at one o’clock, the National Institute for Health Care Management will host a ninety-minute webinar on King v. Burwell. Speakers will include Julie Rovner, Nicholas Bagley, and Michael Cannon.  There is no cost to participate. Registration is available here.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Monday’s decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett resolves a dispute about the vesting of health-care benefits under a collective bargaining agreement. Neither the Employee Retirement Income Security Act nor the National Labor Relations Act obligates employers to provide health-care benefits, but of course employers often do, and their commitments to provide those benefits often appear in collective-bargaining agreements. As so many companies struggle to deal with the overhang of providing employee benefits to long-retired employees, it should be no surprise that employers are pressing harder and harder to limit those obligations. Hence the litigation at hand.

Continue reading »

More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards