The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether “primarily and unconditionally liable” spousal guarantors are unambiguously excluded from being Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) “applicants” because they are not integrally part of “any aspect of a credit transaction”; and (2) whether the Federal Reserve Board has authority under the ECOA to include by regulation spousal guarantors as “applicants” to further the purposes of eliminating discrimination against married women.
It looked bleak for petitioner Baker Botts from the earliest moments of the argument yesterday in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC. The issue in the case is whether the fees that a law firm (Baker Botts) spends defending a fee application in bankruptcy can be compensated out of the estate, and the Justices who showed much interest in that question seemed hesitant (at best) to allow compensation.
For almost the entire time Aaron Streett was at the lectern (for Baker Botts), he was peppered with questions from the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Scalia’s comments suggested that he was sympathetic to the argument of ASARCO (the party opposing Baker Botts’s fee application) that the statute permits compensation for fees only if the services help the estate. Distinguishing between the costs of preparing the fee application (which plainly are compensable) and the costs of litigation defending the application (the issue here), Justice Scalia commented: “[W]hen you prepare [the fee application] you’re serving the trustee – you’re serving his needs. But if he’s disallowing it, you’re, the contrary, acting against the trustee’s interest.” Continue reading »
Scott Dodson, editor, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Cambridge University Press, 2015 (336 pp., cloth, $29.99)
Scott Dodson, the editor of this volume, has brought together an impressive group of law professors, lawyers, historians, and journalists to write about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy. There are sixteen essays, each devoted to different periods of her life and work, with very little overlap in the coverage, and no real conflict of interpretation. In addition to Dodson’s own essay, the book includes contributions by, among others, Thomas Goldstein, Lani Guinier, Robert Katzmann, Herma Hill Kay, Linda Kerber, Dahlia Lithwick, Neil and Reva Siegel, Nina Totenberg, and Joan Williams. Continue reading »
At its Conference on February 27, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Article III standing in class actions, exemption from California’s campaign finance disclosure requirements, and the retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama.
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.
Continue reading »
It looks like the Justices are firmly committed to deciding Tibble v. Edison International, even though the parties now agree on the big issue on which the Justices granted review: whether the fiduciaries of an ERISA plan have a continuing duty of prudence that requires periodic monitoring of investments, or is the duty instead measured at the single point in time when the investment is made. And there’s little doubt that the Court will hold that there is such a duty, because Jonathan Hacker – representing Edison International, the employer – readily conceded its existence. Continue reading »
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, the federal government’s challenge to a retail store’s refusal to hire a Muslim teenager because she wore a headscarf. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English. Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and the BBC News, while at Education Week Mark Walsh looks at the case’s implications for schools. At Fivethirtyeight.com, Oliver Roeder tries to quantify the possible results in the case. Commentary on the case comes from Marci Hamilton, who at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights suggests that, “whatever the Court does, employers and employees have good reason to demand clearer guidance from Congress.” Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by allowing school officials to prevent students from engaging in a silent, passive expression of opinion by wearing American flag shirts because other students might react negatively to the pro-America message, thereby incorporating a heckler's veto into the free speech rights of students contrary to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, and the decisions of other United States courts of appeals.
Today the Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, in which the federal government is suing the retail giant for its refusal to hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim teenager who wore a headscarf. (I previewed the case in Plain English yesterday.) After an hour of often spirited discussion, it wasn’t clear that there was a consensus for either side’s proposed rule. But the government (and therefore Elauf) has reason to be optimistic, as several Justices seemed to coalesce around a rule that would give it much of what it is seeking. Let’s talk about today’s oral arguments in Plain English. Continue reading »
Eric M. Fraser practices appellate, antitrust, and intellectual property law at Osborn Maledon, P.A.
State licensing boards composed of market participants do not enjoy automatic immunity from antitrust laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday. The decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission affirms the Fourth Circuit and deals a setback to an increasingly common form of regulation. Continue reading »
In opinions using a boatload of fishing metaphors, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a federal criminal law against destroying corporate records cannot be used against a commercial fisherman for throwing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution. The ruling split the Court’s nine Justices widely on the question of how judges should interpret federal laws.
In the four-one-four ruling in Yates v. United States, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in the main opinion that the government had claimed that the 2002 law “covers the waterfront, including fish from the sea” — a sweep that the Court rejected. Justice Elena Kagan, for the four dissenters, wrote that the other Justices had gone on a “fishing expedition” for support for the ruling, but the effort “comes up empty.”
Justice Ginsburg (Art Lien)
Continue reading »