Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday morning we expect orders at 9:30. On Tuesday at 10 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases; we will be live-blogging at this link at approximately 9:45.

Thursday round-up

By on Mar 26, 2015 at 6:05 am

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in the challenge to an EPA rule that restricts the release of mercury and other pollutants from power plants.  Coverage comes from Lyle Denniston for this blog, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire, Tony Mauro of the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required) and Richard Wolf of USA Today.  Commentary comes from Michael Bobelian of Forbes and  the editorial boards of The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the (Eugene, Or.) Register-Guard, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Court issued two opinions in argued cases yesterday.  In the Alabama redistricting cases, it sent a Republican plan for state legislative districts back to the lower court for further consideration.  Rick Hasen covered the opinion for this blog, with other coverage coming from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Richard Wolf of USA Today (who also has a separate story about Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the case), and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal.  Commentary comes from Chris Kieser of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, and Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Mar 25, 2015 at 10:21 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-858

Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may be premised on the filing of a proof of claim in bankruptcy and determined using a least-sophisticated consumer standard.

Analysis

Dissatisfied with every argument made to it, a Supreme Court majority on Wednesday on its own fashioned a new way to test complaints that employers are discriminating against workers who become pregnant.  The result, in Young v. United Parcel Service, was a kind of hybrid remedy, judging intentional bias on the one hand and harmful impact on women workers on the other.

It was clear, though, that female workers did not receive legal protection as strong as their advocates sought, but neither did employers get a free pass from claims of pregnancy bias.  The six-to-three decision thus looked like a compromise, landing somewhere in the middle.

Continue reading »

Analysis

Each time the Environmental Protection Agency is before the Supreme Court these days, it gets a reminder that it is not likely to get the benefit of the doubt that it used its regulatory powers entirely legally.  It did seem, as the ninety-minute argument on Michigan v. EPA and two companion cases (National Mining Association v. EPA and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA) unfolded on Wednesday, that any gaps in the record it makes may count heavily against it; good intentions, if it had them, won’t count.

The agency’s decision to regulate the emissions of mercury and other poisonous chemicals from the stacks of electricity-generating power plants that burn coal came out of the argument with clear support from only three Justices and possibly a fourth, offset by clear opposition from two and probably three others.  That put into play the votes of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Continue reading »

It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case giving a small, and perhaps only temporary, victory for minority voters in a dispute over the redrawing of Alabama’s legislative districts after the 2010 census. Indeed, although the Supreme Court sent this “racial gerrymandering” case back for a wide and broad rehearing before a three-judge court, Alabama will be free to junk its plan and start over with one that may achieve the same political ends and keep it out of legal trouble. But Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent sees the majority as issuing “a sweeping holding that will have profound implications for the constitutional ideal of one person, one vote, for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and for the primacy of the State in managing its own elections.” Time will tell if Justice Scalia’s warning against the implications of what he termed a “fantastical” majority opinion is more than typical Scalian hyperbole. And we may know soon enough as these issues get addressed in racial gerrymandering cases from Virginia, North Carolina and elsewhere. Continue reading »

The Court apparently designed its decision Tuesday in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries to answer as narrow a question as possible and I think most readers of this blog will come away convinced that the opinion was a success, at least by that measure. The case presents a question of issue preclusion – the relation between a contested registration proceeding before the Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (commonly called the TTAB) and an infringement proceeding in a federal district court.

Continue reading »

FullSizeRenderOn Monday afternoon Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified before the House Appropriations Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Court’s budget for the next fiscal year and the federal judiciary, but the legislators also took full advantage of the occasion to touch on other topics as well.

Rep. Ander Crenshaw, a Republican from Florida, commended the Court on its proposed budget of $78.2 million, which is almost $1 million less than was requested last year. He commented that “[w]e don’t see that very often.” Continue reading »

Posted in Featured
 
Share:

We are live-blogging this morning as opinions are announced in argued cases. Join us here.

Posted in Live
 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Mar 25, 2015 at 7:09 am

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, in which it considered whether bankruptcy courts can void a second mortgage when the first mortgage is underwater.  I covered the oral argument for this blog; other coverage comes from Daniel Fisher of Forbes. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.  And at ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winner of the case based on the number of questions at oral arguments. Continue reading »

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