On Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a key provision of Texas’s voter ID law and sent the case back to the lower court, reducing the likelihood that the dispute will come to the U.S. Supreme Court soon. Coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog. Rick Hasen has a “first take” at his Election Law Blog and more analysis at Slate, where he suggests that the ruling also contains “a road map for returning Texas’ voting rules to the supervision of the federal government.” And in another post, Hasen compares the Texas decision to a challenge to North Carolina’s voter ID law, arguing that, “if plaintiffs lose on the voter ID issue in NC it will look just like the win in Texas: a strict law in place, with a workaround that may or may not work well on the ground.” Continue reading »
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its ruling in the challenge to Texas’s stringent voter ID law. A divided en banc court struck down one key provision of the law and sent the case back to the lower court, decreasing the chances that the dispute will come immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court. I covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jon Herskovitz and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters and from Manny Fernandez and Erik Eckholm of The New York Times; commentary comes from Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog. Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether respondent has Article III standing to challenge the Forest Service’s failure to reinitiate Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on the Lynx Amendments, which were completed in 2007, after the Fish and Wildlife Service designated additional critical habitat for the lynx in 2009, when respondent cannot identify any member who has or will suffer a concrete injury as a result; (2) whether respondent’s challenge to the Forest Service’s programmatic amendments is ripe for review when respondent failed to challenge any site-specific project authorized under the amended plan provisions; and (3) whether Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires the Forest Service to reinitiate consultation on a completed programmatic agency action that has no on-the-ground effects when a new species is listed or new critical habitat is designated.
A challenge to a Texas voter identification law that some have described as the strictest in the nation now seems less likely to be headed immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 203-page opinion that three dissenting judges characterized as “gravely fractured,” a federal appeals court today struck down one central provision of the law and sent the case back to a federal trial court for more proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit instructed the lower court to fashion a remedy to address the problems faced by minority voters who have trouble obtaining the identification that they would otherwise need to vote in the November 2016 election. But today’s decision was not an unqualified victory for the challengers, as the appeals court also reversed the lower court’s finding that the law was invalid because it was intended to discriminate against minority voters. That question will now go back to the lower court for it to take another look. Continue reading »
Yesterday marked 125 days since the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, the president’s nominee to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports Garland’s achievement of the “unwanted milestone,” with more coverage from Alex Gangitano of Roll Call. Alvero Huerta discusses the stalemate over Garland’s nomination and the Court’s four-to-four tie in the challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy in a post at Medium, arguing that the deadlock in the immigration case shows that “the political dog-and-pony show currently playing itself out in the Senate and being pushed by Republicans who will go to great lengths to stymie the president’s nominee has tied the hands of the Supreme Court.” Continue reading »
Yesterday the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to rehear the challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy, which would allow some undocumented immigrants to apply to remain in the country and work here legally. Last month the Justices divided four to four on the case, leaving in place a ruling by a federal appeals court that blocked the government from implementing the policy; in yesterday’s filing, the federal government asked the Court to reconsider the case when it has all nine Justices. I covered the developments for this blog, with other coverage coming from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Pete Williams of NBC News, and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post. Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether, where purchasers allege that a manufacturer misrepresented a drug’s safety to prescribing doctors to increase sales, the presence of the doctors breaks the causal chain—for purposes of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act causation—between the misrepresentations and the purchasers’ economic injuries.
Twenty-five days ago, the eight Justices of the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order which indicated that they were deadlocked four to four on the validity of the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy, which would allow undocumented immigrants who are the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply to remain in the country without fear of deportation and work here legally. Because two lower courts had blocked the administration from implementing the policy before it could go into effect, it looked like the ruling could be the end of the administration’s immediate attempt to revive the policy prior to the end of all the litigation. But today the Obama administration asked the Court to grant rehearing to review the case again (which would require the votes of five Justices), when it has all nine Justices – even if it isn’t clear when that will be. Continue reading »
Coverage relating to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and her later comments indicating that her remarks were “ill-advised,” comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, who interviewed Ginsburg; commentary comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice suggests that the American Civil Liberties Union has taken “the debate about Donald Trump in the direction that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might have been able to if she had gone beyond off-hand comments to a succession of three reporters”; Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, who argues that Ginsburg’s remarks “were bad for the Supreme Court and, consequently, for the country”; and Fred Hiatt, who in another op-ed for The Washington Post contends that “it’s worth asking” what Ginsburg’s “brief bout of Trump Derangement Syndrome says about our system’s ability to withstand four years of a Trump presidency.”
Commentary on the announcement by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady that he will not seek relief from the Supreme Court in the “Deflategate” controversy comes from Matt Bonesteel in The Washington Post and Nathaniel Grow at the Sports Law Blog. Continue reading »
The petitions of the day are:
Issue: (1) Whether, under Brady v. Maryland, courts may consider information that arises after trial in determining the materiality of suppressed evidence; and (2) whether, in a case where no physical evidence inculpated petitioners, the prosecution’s suppression of information that included the identification of a plausible alternative perpetrator violated petitioners’ due process rights under Brady.
Issue: Whether, consistent with this Court’s Brady v. Maryland jurisprudence, a court may require a defendant to demonstrate that suppressed evidence “would have led the jury to doubt virtually everything” about the government’s case in order to establish that the evidence is material.