Plain English
This is our archive of posts in Plain English. You may also be interested in these resources:
Supreme Court Procedure
Glossary of Legal Terms
Biographies of the Justices
Because there are no arguments or opinions at the Court this week, we thought that it might be a good day to catch up on last week's oral arguments in Plain English.
The arguments were many (six) and varied (everything from sentencing law to double jeopardy to securities fraud).
In Barber v. Thomas, the Court engaged in a tough process of statutory interpretation. Put simply, a major part of the Court's job is to read federal statutes and figure out what the words in them mean, how they work together, and how they should apply. Very often, different federal courts of appeals have interpreted the statutory language differently, and it's up to the Court to establish a consistent interpretation of the law.
In Barber, the language at issue is the phrase "term of imprisonment," under a federal law that awards federal prisoners credit "“ in the form of days off of their sentences "“ for good behavior. While the term might seem simple on its face, in operation, it is anything but. At argument, the Justices' job was to figure out how different interpretations of the phrase would play out in real-life sentences. How did they attempt to do that? Through a common questioning technique called "extension of the hypothetical." Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
As many of you undoubtedly know, spring's an exciting time for SCOTUS watchers, and not just because the cherry blossoms are abloom in Washington, DC. For Chief Justice Roberts, a self-professed basketball fan, perhaps it's about March Madness, but for those of us more interested in the Court than in the court, it's because we're starting to reach that time of year when opinions come down fast and furious. It's been six months since the First Monday in October (which Congress has designated as the first day of the new SCOTUS Term), so the Court has had a chance to consider carefully a number of important cases that were argued early in the Term. From now until the end of June (the traditionally self-imposed end of the active SCOTUS Term, although each Term officially runs until the beginning of the next), we're bound to see lots of law being interpreted and made.
This week was certainly typical for early spring: The Court handed down opinions in five cases, several of them in fairly major cases heard several months ago. There's lots to discuss in plain English.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
So let's catch up on this week's happenings over at the Court. Argument weeks are always busy, but this one was a bit less so, with only one opinion and five oral arguments instead of the more typical six. Still, with chatter about the new health care bill someday making its way to the Supreme Court, an execution stayed, and Asian carp still threatening Lake Michigan, there was plenty going on to keep things interesting.
Probably most of note this week were the Court's orders, as noted by Lyle on Monday. An order of the Court can be many things: it can grant or deny cert., it can stay or deny a stay in an execution, or it can tell attorneys to do something (like file an additional brief). This week, the Court did not grant cert. in at least two cases in which some thought it might do so: it declined to review an appeals court ruling that took away the power of federal judges to stop transfers of Guantanamo detainees, and it also denied cert. in a case involving religious music in schools.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
Even though we're only halfway through the week, it has already been an interesting week at the Court.
On Monday, the Court handed down two opinions in cases involving the Speedy Trial Act and attorney advice in bankruptcy proceedings.
Let's start with Bloate v. U.S. You probably know that a criminal defendant has a right to a speedy trial, both under the Sixth Amendment (a provision of the United States Constitution) and under the Speedy Trial Act (a federal law enacted by Congress). In Bloate, the Court had to decide just how "speedy" was speedy enough under federal law. As Scott Street explained in his post on Tuesday, the Court invoked its justice sword in holding that time spent preparing pretrial motions can only be excluded from the 70 days allowed to bring a criminal defendant to trial if excluding the days from the day count serves the ends of justice.
Here's what's ordinary about Bloate: The Court is called upon almost daily to interpret an act of Congress, or a federal law. Many statutes contain ambiguous terms (What is a "father," for example? Or a "motor vehicle"? Or, as we will see below in my discussion of Milavetz, a "debt relief agency"?), and one of the functions of the court system is to interpret just what those terms mean. When a federal statute is really ambiguous, the federal courts of appeals may disagree about what the statute means. That's generally when the Supreme Court will step in, because it wants to ensure that a federal statute is interpreted and applied the same way in every part of the United States.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
I've been away for two weeks; hence, no Plain English posts. But what an exciting time to catch up! For SCOTUS watchers like us, this was not the week to miss, especially because of the oral argument in the long-anticipated gun rights case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. Other interesting developments? An examination of Jeffrey Skilling's trial (especially the jury selection) and the wrap-up of our Black History Month coverage. Add in a same-sex marriage ruling and a huge Miranda case, and you've got a week that could keep even the most reluctant SCOTUS fan entertained.
Let's start with the crown jewel of the week, at least in terms of visibility (yes, some people camped outside the Court for more than twenty-four hours so that they could see the argument): McDonald v. City of Chicago, the follow-up to the Court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.
To understand McDonald, you'll first have to understand the concept of incorporation. In a very early case, the Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Over many years of jurisprudence, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that most of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights also apply to the states. The Court has found that the rights are "incorporated" through the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, neither the federal government nor the states can make laws that, for example, limit free speech, deny the right to counsel, or allow unreasonable searches. Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English, Uncategorized
Last Wednesday, we posted a list of the CVSG cases for the Term here. For those of you not engaged in minute-by-minute SCOTUS watching, though, this might be one of many acronyms that makes you want to hang up your morning suit (yes, that reference means something in this discussion) and leave the building.
But CVSG cases may well be some of the most interesting cases of the Term! Why? Because these cases are sufficiently important that the Court has decided to Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.
First, let's start with the Solicitor General (or, to those in the know, the "SG"). No, as Greg Garre "“ who preceded the current SG "“ is wont to say, this is not the person whose name appears above the warning on cigarette packs: that is the Surgeon General. The Solicitor General is also appointed by the President, but he or she went to law school, not medical school. The SG represents the interests of the United States, or the federal government, before the Supreme Court. The current Solicitor General is Elena Kagan; she is the first woman to hold the post.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
Last week at the Supreme Court of the United States was certainly a huge one, especially given the decision in Citizens United. But one of the things we SCOTUSbloggers love about the Court is that every week brings its own new, interesting developments.
Take Monday's short-as-can-be decision in Briscoe v. Virginia. Now, I and others on this blog have discussed the case from any number of angles (see here, for example). But for those of you watching and reading out there, Monday's decision may have slipped right by you "“ that is how unexpected it was to some of us, in the timing at least. Why? Well, because the case was only argued two weeks ago, as discussed here. Usually, it takes the Court a while to reach agreement about the proper outcome of a case, then draft an opinion. As I discussed last week when explaining why we waited for quite some time for the Citizens United decision, these decisions are extremely important and far-reaching. But in Briscoe, the Court decided the case quickly and definitively in what Richard Friedman, one of the attorneys in the case, has called a G . . . . VR.
Continue reading »
Posted in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Plain English
By now, you have likely heard the news: The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the government may not keep corporations (and probably, as Lyle reasons in his post yesterday, labor unions) from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While the business entities may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. Why? Because the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.
The four dissenting Justices were vocal and vociferous: They voiced the concern that allowing unfettered spending by rich corporations will allow those corporations to influence the outcome of elections in sweeping ways. They also explained that corporations are not human beings and should not have the same free speech rights that humans do.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
Below, Professor Lisa McElroy continues her coverage from the previous post of last week on SCOTUSblog and at the Court.
In Part II of my Plain English posts for the week, we will take a look at the major cases the Court heard, decided, or granted this week.
First, the Prop 8 controversy. As you may know, in June, California's Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry under the California Constitution. However, in November, California voters adopted an initiative called Proposition 8, eliminating that right. Now some advocates of same-sex marriage are suing in federal court in California, arguing that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution and seeking to reinstate the right for gays and lesbians to marry in California.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
Below, Professor Lisa McElroy of Drexel University’s law school summarizes the activity on the blog and at the Court last week in terms understandable by non-lawyers. This post covers part of Monday; a second post will follow shortly with coverage of the rest of the week.
From staying the television broadcast of the Prop 8 trial to hearing big cases to trying an original action to handing down opinions, the Justices have been working hard.
On Monday, the Court engaged in one of its less-known and less-exercised responsibilities: to hear controversies between the states "“ also known as "original jurisdiction," which we discussed in this post. On Monday, Josh Friedman explained the case in detail here. Several southern states entered into a "compact" to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste at a facility to be located in North Carolina. As you can imagine, most states don't want such a facility (a classic case of NIMBY "“ Not In My BackYard), so the other states agreed to give North Carolina $80 million. North Carolina later withdrew from the compact, but it kept the $80 million. The states (led by Alabama) and the Commission decided to sue North Carolina in the Supreme Court to get the money back, as well as to force North Carolina pay $90 million more.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
The following is a “plain English” summary of the Court’s and blog’s activities last week by Professor Lisa McElroy of Drexel University’s law school.
Happy New Year! Although the Court did not get busy with official business until the Conference on January 8, there was plenty going on at 1 First Street, N.E., this week, as well as in some of the courts of appeals. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears start in the federal district courts or federal agencies, go to the federal courts of appeals (also known as circuit courts), and then go on from there to the Supreme Court, although some are cases from state courts presenting questions of federal law.
On Monday, the Court published the list of oral arguments for the "March sitting." The Supreme Court typically hears oral argument on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays for two weeks each month. Most arguments take place in the mornings between 10:00 and 12:00, and each case is usually allotted an hour (thirty minutes per side). However, arguments occasionally take place in the afternoon as well and some cases (like this Monday's original action, Alabama v. North Carolina) are granted extended argument time.
Also on Monday, Lyle wrote about the dismissal of a case addressing whether prosecutors are liable for money damages if they purposefully arrange for false testimony. Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the case? Well, even though the parties had already briefed and argued the case, they agreed to settle, which they can do at any time. Because the Constitution says that federal courts can only hear an actual "case" or "controversy," as opposed to settled lawsuits, the Supreme Court had to dismiss the case. Some scholars have been upset that the Court did not get the chance to decide the case because it presented such an important issue.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
In the spirit of our recent plain English posts, and as requested by readers, we are publishing the following new glossary of Supreme Court terms, which defines the legal terminology we regularly use in our posts. This is just our first attempt at a glossary, and as such we will continue to expand and improve it. For easy access, we’ve permalinked it at the bottom of the right sidebar and created a new page for it on SCOTUSwiki.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
This is a catch-all group of civil cases the Court is hearing this Term. There are important cases to the business community, such as the Bilski patent case. The Court also has an unusually high number of cases regarding the processes by which the federal courts operate.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
This group contains most of the cases involving constitutional and civil rights claims. There are several significant free speech cases, as well as other important constitutional law cases.
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
The criminal law docket includes roughly thirty cases that divide fairly evenly into three categories: Criminal Procedure (including both constitutional criminal procedure and statutory rules); Criminal Law (for example, the term’s three cases involving the federal “honest services” statute); and Habeas Corpus (the post-conviction process).
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
As part of our commitment to expand the accessibility of the blog, today we’re publishing plain English summaries of the Questions Presented in each of the merits cases from the Term. The summaries will also be available on SCOTUSwiki. In posts below, we have set out the questions, divided according to their subject matter.
Posted in Plain English
The following post is our first by Professor Lisa McElroy, of Drexel University’s law school. Lisa has agreed to write Plain English posts for us on occasion that will recap the blog’s recent activity in terms understandable by non-lawyers.
It has been quiet at the Supreme Court this and last week, because the Court is on its Winter break. Nothing official will be happening at the Court until January 8, when the Justices will meet for their private "Conference" to discuss pending petitions. When we next hear from the Court will depend on its plans for those petitions. If they intend to hear argument in those cases this Term, they may issue an Orders List that afternoon listing the granted cases. Otherwise, they will announce the Orders on Monday the 11th.
One interesting detail about Conference: The most junior justice sits nearest the exit and is responsible for answering the door, sending messages out, and so on. Justice Breyer held this unenvied post for longer than almost any other Justice in history "“ over eleven years. (He missed setting the record by only twenty-nine days but was saved by Justice Alito's appointment).
Continue reading »
Posted in Plain English
