Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

The court will be issuing opinions on Friday at 10 a.m. We are live-blogging at this link.
Our first interim Stat Pack for October Term 2016, prepared by Kedar Bhatia, is available at this link.
The Supreme Court proceedings and orders in the legal challenges to the administration’s entry ban are available at this link.

We live-blogged this morning as the court released opinions. The transcript is available at this link.

Posted in Live
 
Share:

The justices are expected to take the bench today at 10 a.m. to issue opinions in argued cases. There are 12 decisions still outstanding, involving everything from cross-border shootings and property rights to the death penalty and public funding for playgrounds at religious preschools. Here is a brief summary of each of those 12 cases, organized by the sitting in which they were argued.

December sitting (November 28 to December 7)

Jennings v. Rodriguez: The question before the Supreme Court in this case is whether immigrants who are detained have a right to a bond hearing – that is, a chance to appear in front of an immigration judge and seek their release after making payments to ensure that they will appear at later proceedings in the case. The named plaintiff in the class action is Alejandro Rodriguez, who was held for more than three years without a hearing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that immigration judges must give immigrants who have been detained bond hearings at least every six months; at the hearing, the immigration judge must order an immigrant’s release unless the government can show convincingly that the immigrant is either a flight risk or a danger to public safety.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on Jun 22, 2017 at 7:20 am

At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[a]dministration lawyers submitted their final written arguments at midday Wednesday” in the government’s bid to reinstate its temporary ban on entry into the U.S. by nationals from six Muslim-majority countries and that in “a new legal point, they sought to rely on a two-day-old ruling by the Justices to support their claim for vast power for the White House in national security actions.” Additional coverage of the government’s filing comes from Gary Gately at Talk Media News. At Take Care, Leah Litman maintains that “it doesn’t really matter whether the President issued the clarifying memorandum in response to the injunctions or possibility of mootness,” and that the “key point—and the problem for the administration—is that the entry procedures are not now, and perhaps were never formally linked to the government’s review of its entry procedures.” At Just Security, Marty Lederman points out that the government’s brief relies on the president’s “’national security judgment,’” but he argues that the president “merely issued a decree, complete with an ostensible ‘finding,’ manifestly designed solely to fulfill a campaign promise,” and that “[s]uch an ipse dixit does not a ‘national security judgment’ make–let alone one to which the Justices ought to afford significant deference.” At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy offers a rundown of the status of the litigation pending before the court and the issues in the cases.

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Today I am happy to present our first interim Stat Pack for the October Term 2016. With only a handful of opinion days left in the term, several key trends have revealed themselves. You can view the Stat Pack in its entirety here. Below, you can view each section of the Stat Pack individually.

Posted in Featured
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:22 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-1225

Issue: Whether a warrantless search incident to arrest may precede the arrest.

This morning the Trump administration responded to yesterday’s brief by the state of Hawaii, which urged the justices to stay out of the dispute over the March 6 executive order, often known as the “travel ban,” which put a hold on visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. Although Hawaii argued yesterday that a June 14 memorandum by the president instructing federal agencies to begin a review of the procedures used to vet and approve visa applications undermined the rationale for the travel ban and eliminated any need for the Supreme Court to step in, today the federal government attempted to refocus the debate. Supreme Court review of the lower-court decisions blocking the travel ban is essential, the government argued, because those decisions interfere with the president’s determination that the travel ban is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

In yesterday’s filing, Hawaii contended that the June 14 memorandum demonstrated that the travel ban is no longer necessary. The provisions of the president’s March 6 executive order requiring the government to review its procedures for vetting visa and refugee applications – the justification for the ban – will go into effect at the end of this week, but the visa and refugee programs themselves remain on hold until the lower courts’ orders are lifted. Because the government’s review will almost certainly have been completed by the fall, when the justices would hear oral argument in the travel-ban litigation, the rationale underlying the ban will no longer exist, and therefore there is no need for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the ban’s legality.

Continue reading »

In its conference of June 22, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the just-compensation clause prohibits a legislature from limiting how just compensation for a taking is calculated and whether the just-compensation clause allows the jury to value the fee interest taken as if it were still encumbered by a discontinued highway easement; and whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and thus fall outside the act’s definition of “whistleblower.”

Continue reading »

 
Share:

The Return of Relist Watch SelectTM

By on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:59 am

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists … barely.

Because I am composing (some would say composting) this at 34,000 feet with minimal Internet, even less time, and only as much legroom as I can obtain by storing unused limbs in the overhead bin, this week we’ll once again be favoring our readership with the affordable luxury of Relist Watch SelectTM. For times like this … it’s Relist Watch Select™.

Before proceeding to phone it in flagrantly, let me pause just long enough to note that with the Supreme Court putting partisan-gerrymander case Gill v. Whitford, 16-1161, on its merits docket for next fall as anticipated by last week’s post (and granting Wisconsin its requested stay), October Term 2017 is shaping up nicely after two lackluster terms. (Harris v. Cooper, 16-166, meanwhile, looks like it’s being held for Gill.)

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Jun 21, 2017 at 7:26 am

Court-watchers continue to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it will hear a high-profile partisan-gerrymandering case from Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford. In The Economist, Steven Mazie notes that “the justices have looked the other way when oddly drawn districts clump voters based on party rather than race,” and that “[i]f the challenge to hyper-partisan line-drawing succeeds, the shape of districts to come may tighten the link between voters’ preferences and who gets elected.” Nina Totenberg reports on the case for NPR, pointing out that “Republicans have more to lose in next term’s case because they control state legislatures in many more states than the Democrats do, and they stand to maximize that advantage again after the 2020 census.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Walter Olson observes that “the five-member majority to stay the Wisconsin order … suggests that at this point it is the conservative side’s case to lose.” Lisa Soronen discusses the case at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ blog, noting that the “challengers propose a standard for determining the influence of partisan gerrymandering in the district-drawing process” that is based on ‘wasted votes’–votes in each district cast for a non-winning party’s candidate.” At PrawfsBlawg, Daniel Rodriguez questions whether “we [can] truly get our arms around a constitutional jurisprudence that sorts and separates good from bad politics.” Additional commentary comes from John Nichols in The Nation and Ryan Lockman at Lock Law Blog.

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Jun 20, 2017 at 10:30 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-1215

Issue: Whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s … financial condition” within Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards