Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

We expect additional orders from the December 2 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday.

Tuesday round-up

By on Nov 29, 2016 at 6:24 am

Today, the court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Texas, which asks whether Texas can rely on an outdated standard in determining whether a defendant’s intellectual disability precludes him from being executed. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Another preview comes from Karen Ojeda and Nicholas Halliburton for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Additional coverage of Moore comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, who notes that “the state’s test is based on what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals called ‘a consensus of Texas citizens,’ that not all those who meet the ‘social services definition’ of ‘retardation’ should be exempt from the death penalty,” and from Steven Mazie in The Economist. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Carol and Jordan Steiker argue that rather than “relying on the same approach to intellectual disability that Texas uses in every other context (such as placement in special education or eligibility for disability benefits),” the state appeals “court sought to redefine the condition in the capital context so that only offenders who meet crude stereotypes about intellectual disability are shielded from execution.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Nov 28, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-500

Issues: (1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 applies where the child has not been removed from an Indian family or community; (2) whether ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences, 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a), require removal from a foster placement made under Section 1915(b), for the purpose of triggering the adoptive placement preferences contained in Section 1915(a); and (3) whether the state courts erred in holding that “good cause” to depart from ICWA’s placement preferences must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence”—contrary to the text and structure of the statute and the decision of at least one other state court of last resort—or otherwise erred in their interpretation of “good cause.”

adler

The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of “Business and the Roberts Court” (Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 342), edited by Jonathan H. Adler.

Welcome, Jonathan, and thank you for taking the time to participate in this question-and-answer exchange for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your latest book – it is a thoughtful addition to the scholarly literature on the Supreme Court.

* * *

The task of creating what I might call a constitutional ethos of economic liberty is no easy one. Justice Antonin Scalia, October 26, 1984

Question: In your acknowledgements, you note that “Business and the Roberts Court” was almost derailed owing to the “untimely passing of Professor Larry Ribstein,” one of the former editors of The Supreme Court Economic Review. Can you say a few words about this and how following his death the book got back on track?

Adler: Larry’s untimely death was a tragedy, and we miss him. He was an important scholar, and he had interesting thoughts on how to understand Citizens United from the perspective of corporate law. His passing meant that I had to find a different way to address Citizens United in the book. Luckily, I was able to convince Joel Gora to come aboard and contribute an excellent chapter.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Argument transcript

By on Nov 28, 2016 at 1:23 pm

The transcript in Beckles v. United States is here.

Posted in Merits Cases
 
Share:

Event announcement

By on Nov 28, 2016 at 10:18 am

On December 1 at 5 p.m. PST, the Criminal Justice Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco will present a panel on “Securities Law, Insider Trading, and Salman v. U.S.” Speakers will include Rory Little, Gail Shifman, Ismail Ramsey and David Callaway; Jonathan Schmidt will serve as moderator. More information and registration for this event, which will be held at the BASF Conference Center in San Francisco, is available on the bar association’s website.

 
Share:

Monday round-up

By on Nov 28, 2016 at 6:54 am

Today, the court will hear oral argument in Beckles v. United States, which asks whether the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. Nora Demleitner previewed the case for this blog. Another preview comes from Kara Goad and Elizabeth Sullivan for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket previews all the cases in the December sitting.

In The Economist, Steven Mazie looks at Moore v. Texas, a case on tomorrow’s argument schedule that asks whether Texas can rely on an outdated standard in determining whether a defendant’s intellectual disability precludes him from being executed; Mazie observes that in “a shifting political climate where respect for scientific consensus is no longer a sure bet, Texas maintains that it can choose from a range of standards for intellectual disability, including one drawn from the pages of a novel.” Another look at Moore comes from Lawrence Gostin in ACSblog, who notes that “Texas is a global outlier when it comes to its method for evaluating intellectual disability claims in death penalty cases.”

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

This week at the court

By on Nov 27, 2016 at 12:05 pm

The court issued orders from the November 22 conference on Monday. It did not grant any new cases. The court called for the views of the solicitor general in one case, an original action between New Mexico and Colorado. On Tuesday, the court released its decision in Bravo-Fernandez v. United States. The court also heard oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The calendar for the December sitting is available on the court’s website. On Friday the justices will meet for their December 2 conference; that afternoon the justices granted seven new cases, three of which are consolidated for one-hour argument.

 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Nov 25, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-497

Issue: Whether a taxpayer who files a return after assessment has filed a “return” under Section 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Petition of the day

By on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-493

Issue: Whether the “on sale” bar found in Section 102(b) of the Patent Act applies only to sales or offers of sale made available to the public, as Congress, this court, and the United States have all made clear, or whether it also applies to non-public sales or offers of sale, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held.

Petition of the day

By on Nov 23, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-595

Issues: (1) Whether Alabama’s advisory jury death sentencing scheme, which is in all relevant aspects the same as the Florida scheme reviewed in Hurst v. Florida, violates the Sixth Amendment; (2) whether Hurst and the Sixth and Eighth Amendments require, at least, a unanimous jury recommendation for a sentence of death, as the Florida Supreme Court held on remand in Hurst; and (3) whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst applies retroactively to the petitioner’s case, and the cases of other condemned inmates sentenced under unconstitutional capital sentencing laws, where the new rule announced in Hurst implicates the fundamental right to a fair trial and substantially enhances fact-finding procedures.

 

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards