Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

The court will issue orders from its January 13 conference on Tuesday, January 17, at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday, January 18, at 10:00 a.m.
On Tuesday the court hears oral argument in Lynch v. Dimaya. Kevin Johnson has our preview.
On Tuesday the court also hears oral argument in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson. Ronald Mann has our preview.

screen-shot-2017-01-12-at-1-28-29-pm

Ahmer Abbasi (Center for Constitutional Rights)

It has been more than 15 years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, but litigation related to the attacks and the U.S. government’s response continues to wind its way through the courts. Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one such case, filed by a group of Muslim men who were in the country illegally and were arrested after the attacks. In their lawsuit, the men contend that their rights were violated when they were held in detention centers under unreasonably harsh conditions until they were cleared of any connection to terrorism, even though federal officials knew that they had no such connection, because of their race and ethnicity.

As the case comes to the Supreme Court, the question before the justices is not whether the men’s rights were violated, but instead whether their claims against a group of federal officials can go forward at all. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and allowed several claims to proceed. The officials – former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, and former INS Commissioner James Ziglar, along with Dennis Hasty and James Sherman, the wardens at the federal detention center where some detainees were held – now urge the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling and dismiss the claims against them, arguing that litigating the plaintiffs’ claims would entangle courts in questions relating to national security, intelligence, and immigration. But the plaintiffs counter that the officials must be held accountable for their actions to demonstrate the country’s “commitment to the rule of law” and to deter future constitutional violations.

Continue reading »

Relist Watch

By on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:01 am

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists

Happy New Year, everyone! 2016 was such a trainwreck of a year, right up to the bitter (and I mean bitter) end; 2017 will surely be better! Already, it’s as if a warm breeze has blown into the nation’s capital, ushering in an era of good feeling and unity so profound and sincere that no ironic hyperlink could adequately express it. And it looks like all the weird news stories are finally behind us.

But 2016 was not all bad. It brought with it what will one day be recognized, along with self-driving cars, drone snack delivery, and the clip-on man bun, as one of the defining technological breakthroughs of the 21st century: Relist Watch SelectTM. A week when we have 27(!) new relists seems like a fitting time to reflect on the genius of Voltaire’s quip, “If Relist Watch SelectTM did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.” (Disclosure: Quotation partly made up.) Without it, there is no guarantee that this would have been posted before, say, the day in late June when the last of this Friday’s grants will ultimately be decided.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on Jan 12, 2017 at 7:06 am

Yesterday the court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, in which the justices considered what level of educational benefit students with disabilities must receive. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Mark Walsh at Education Week, Jim Gerl at the Special Education Law Blog, and Nina Totenberg at NPR, who notes that “by the end of the argument, there appeared to be a majority of justices willing to put more bite into the guarantee of a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities.” Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, who argues that “there’s something morally troubling about saying that our national standard of appropriate education is to be better than nothing.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jan 11, 2017 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-658

Issue: Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) can deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal that is statutorily timely, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits have concluded, or whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is instead a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule because it is not derived from a statute, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have concluded, and therefore subject to equitable considerations such as forfeiture, waiver and the unique-circumstances doctrine.

 

At today’s oral argument in the case of a Colorado student with autism, one thing seemed relatively clear: The justices were dissatisfied with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s ruling that school districts can satisfy federal education law as long as they offer a student with a disability an educational program that provides him or her with a benefit that is more than merely de minimis, or non-trivial. It was less clear exactly what standard (if any) the justices might substitute for the “more than merely de minimis” standard, but a standard “with bite” – as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan put it – would be a welcome development for children with disabilities and their parents.

Continue reading »

Argument transcript

By on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:02 pm

The transcript in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District is here.

Posted in Merits Cases
 
Share:

judge_steven_colloton_2016

Steven Colloton, who just turned 54 on January 9, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Colloton graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School before clerking for Judge Laurence Silberman on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. He began his practice in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, and then became an assistant U. S. Attorney in his home state of Iowa, a position he held for approximately eight years. After a short stint in private practice, Colloton returned to government service when President George W. Bush named him U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa in 2000. In 2003, Bush nominated Colloton to join the 8th Circuit. His confirmation to that position was uneventful: Senator Jeff Sessions tossed Colloton a few softball questions before announcing that he was highly qualified; he was confirmed by a vote of 94-1 on September 4, 2003.

In his 13-plus years of service as a federal judge, Colloton has been prolific; the 8th Circuit’s website lists him as the author of 615 different majority opinions. Even when he does not write the majority opinion, he often reveals his thinking in concurrences and dissents. We found more than 120 cases relating to controversial subjects in which Colloton either wrote or joined an opinion.

Continue reading »

The oral argument yesterday morning in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman brought the justices face to face with the battle between merchants and credit-card networks over the “interchange” fees that merchants pay when they accept cards in retail transactions. The dispute that got the fees before the justices involves a New York statute that says that “[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.” The petitioner, Expressions Hair Design (leader of the group of merchants challenging the provision), argues that the statute violates the First Amendment because it limits a merchant’s right to describe the extra costs imposed on purchasers using credit cards as “surcharges.”

Continue reading »

In its conference of January 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a criminal defendant charged with an offense punishable by incarceration is denied due process when he is tried by a non-lawyer judge and when the defendant has no opportunity for a de novo trial before a judge who is a lawyer; whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis; and whether a naturalized American citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Jan 11, 2017 at 7:25 am

Today the court will hear oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, in which the justices will consider what level of educational benefits students with disabilities must receive. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Dara Brown and Jaeeun Shin at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute also provide a preview. Commentary comes from Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, who argues that inviting “litigation over an unworkably vague standard,” as he contends the petitioners are doing in this case, “can only exacerbate the class bias of a statutory scheme already notorious for favoring wealthier and litigation-savvy parents through its litigation-oriented focus,” and that “the statutory standard offered by the petitioners, although calling for equal educational opportunity, may actually make educational opportunity more unequal.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:
More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards