Petition of the day

By on Oct 13, 2017 at 8:20 pm

The petition of the day is:

17-424

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Texas correctly decided that Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons,” regardless of whether their marriages are same-sex or opposite-sex.

Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

The court heard argument this week in:

Posted in Merits Cases
 
Share:

Friday round-up

By on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:09 am

On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, which will determine the venue for challenges to Clean Water Act rules. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.] Miriam Seifter has this blog’s argument analysis. John Siciliano covers the argument for the Washington Examiner.

At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie discusses the court’s dismissal as moot last week of one of two challenges to President Donald Trump’s March 6 travel ban, noting that “[a]s one set of battles over Mr Trump’s appetite for banning Muslim people from America’s shores fizzles out, another is set to begin.” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps suggests that even though the administration’s “third travel-ban order may very likely be upheld” in the Supreme Court, the first two bans “and the government’s inept efforts to defend [them] have permanently damaged this administration’s legal credibility.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Oct 12, 2017 at 8:20 pm

The petition of the day is:

17-418

Issues: (1) Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Transfers Rule conflicts with the plain meaning of the Clear Water Act by concluding that a water transfer’s introduction of pollutants to a navigable water body is not an “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters” within the meaning of the Act; and (2) whether the EPA may justify the Water Transfers Rule on the basis of perceived costs and benefits caused by the Act’s permitting process, when it expressly declined to conduct any actual assessment of the costs or benefits of permitting.

Relist Watch (UPDATED)

By on Oct 12, 2017 at 12:19 pm

[Editor’s note: This post has been updated to include two additional relists, Oliver v. Florida and Tharpe v. Sellers.]

John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists.

If you’d told me back in January that the two most reviled figures of late 2017 would be a man who had been thanked more times than God and a furry creature that was created specifically to be lovable, I would have said: Yeah, that sounds about right. 2017 is weird – it is a time when you can no longer count on basic things you took for granted.

But at least (cue obvious segue) we can count on one thing: The Supreme Court will relist a mess of new cases just as you’re trying to prepare for oral argument. This week is no exception: By my count, we have a whopping 11 new relists (to say nothing – and I do intend to say nothing – of five returning relists). And these are not small cases. For example, a case with a caption like United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 17-2, just sounds epic. And an epic case it is, presenting the issue of whether Microsoft must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant for email records that the company maintains in Ireland. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit concluded that Microsoft was not required to comply with the warrant, and Uncle Sam seeks to challenge that conclusion. The petition is also the rare relist that involves a case for which there is not – at least so far as I have found – a square circuit split on the narrow question presented. The case thus is seeking a position on the docket with Carpenter v. United States16-402, as a case so important that the Supreme Court takes it even in the absence of a square split.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

In its conference of October 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction; whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment; and whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising

Continue reading »

 
Share:

The scope of the federal government’s regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act has long been controversial. Stretch it too far, and it appears that the federal government can regulate every puddle in the nation; narrow it too much, and the government is left unable to protect the quality of interconnected waters. For that reason, each time the government has promulgated a rule defining the act’s geographic scope — as it did in the 2015 “Clean Water Rule” — lawsuits quickly follow. In yesterday’s argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court considered the preliminary question of whether those lawsuits should be filed in district courts or courts of appeals.

Rachel P. Kovner, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general (Art Lien)

Continue reading »

Thursday round-up

By on Oct 12, 2017 at 7:23 am

Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in two cases. The first was in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, which will determine the venue for challenges to  Clean Water Act rules. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.] At E&E News, Amanda Reilly reports that “[t]he case is far from a slam-dunk for either side, but justices seemed more inclined to side with the industry group.”

Yesterday’s second argument was in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which asks whether corporations are liable under the Alien Tort Statute. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), and Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, who reports that the “Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday as to whether a corporation could be sued in an American court for human rights violations, though signs of a compromise emerged during the argument.” Commentary on Jesner comes from the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and from Thomas Pickering in an op-ed for The Hill, who argues that opening the door to corporate liability under the ATS “would leave relations with every country in the world a potential hostage to U.S.-based lawsuits.” At the Human Rights At Home Blog, Jena Martin suggests that the court may “further limit the use of the ATS” by “order[ing] re-arguments in the case, asking the parties to once again address the issue of extraterritoriality.” Stephen Vladeck and Julian Ku discuss the case in a Bloomberg Law podcast.

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Oct 11, 2017 at 8:20 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-1532

Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, in a state that permits residents to legally carry firearms while in public, an officer’s belief that a person is armed allows the officers to infer for purposes of a Terry v. Ohio search that the person is “presently dangerous.”

The Supreme Court was divided today on whether corporations can be held liable in U.S. courts under a federal law dating back over two centuries. After an hour of oral argument by three excellent advocates, and five years after they considered the question for the first time, several of the justices appeared to be ready to hold that the Alien Tort Statute does not allow lawsuits against corporations for serious violations of international law. Some of the other justices seemed to be trying to salvage a ruling that might eventually end this lawsuit while leaving the door open for some lawsuits against corporations, but it was not at all clear that they could garner five votes for that result.

Jeffrey L. Fisher for petitioners (Art Lien)

Continue reading »

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards