SCOTUSblog is now accepting applications from current law students interested in interning with us. Details about the position’s qualifications and responsibilities, as well as how to apply, are below the jump.
The law professor most recently appointed to the Court (Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, and Breyer also shared that prior career) today authored an opinion on a topic that has not been much improved on since Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1938: the law of “aiding and abetting” or “accomplice liability” – in other words, criminal liability based on helping someone else commit a crime. To the relief of those of us still teaching law, the Court’s opinion steered a straightforward doctrinal line, and only a small – but not unimportant – point separated the Justices from a unanimous opinion. Continue reading »
Yesterday the Court issued three decisions in argued cases, including in Lozano v. Alvarez, in which it held that the one-year period to file a petition seeking a child’s return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be equitably tolled. I covered the decision for this blog; other coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley of Reuters. Continue reading »
On March 11, the Kaiser Family Foundation will host an event on the legal and policy implications of the Court’s decision in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
Speakers Laurie Sobel, Marci A. Hamilton, and Tom Goldstein will join moderator Alina Salganicoff. For more information and to register for this event, visit the Kaiser Family Foundation Website.
On Sunday, March 9, at 5 p.m., Tom Goldstein will also speak at Bard College’s Hannah Arendt Center in New York City about blogging on the Supreme Court. RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether Congress has the authority to confer Article III standing to sue when the plaintiff suffers no concrete harm and alleges as an injury only a bare, technical violation of a federal statute.
After the December oral argument in Lozano v. Alvarez, I reported that the Justices seemed to be dissatisfied with both of their options in the international child abduction case. On the one hand, they could agree with Diana Montoya Alvarez, the mother in the case, that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction only gave Manuel Lozano, the child’s father, one year to file a lawsuit in the United States seeking his daughter’s automatic return to the United Kingdom – even if he couldn’t find her before that one-year period expired. But a holding that the one-year period could not be equitably tolled to account for the abducting parent’s bad behavior, some Justices fretted at oral argument, would give parents an incentive to hide their children until the one-year period had passed, at which point a court considering the case could then consider whether the child was settled in her new environment.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
A divided Supreme Court issued its decision on Tuesday in Lawson v. FMR LLC, ruling that the anti-retaliation protection provided to whistleblowers by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) applies to employees of private companies that contract with public companies. Justice Ginsburg authored the decision for the majority, which was joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan and Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined the majority in principal part, but Justice Scalia wrote a separate dissent which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, dissented.
And George Clooney found his way into his first U.S. Supreme Court opinion.