Yesterday the Court issued three opinions in three argued cases, as well as orders from the May 17 Conference.
In Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers, the Court held that the position of the Board of Immigration Appeals that an alien seeking cancellation of removal must individually satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) – lawful permanent resident status for at least five years and at least seven years of continuous residence in the United States after a lawful admission – rather than relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or lawful permanent resident status is based on a permissible construction of the statute. James Vicini of Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune) and UPI have coverage of the unanimous decision, which Kevin Johnson of the ImmigrationProf Blog characterizes as, “at first glance, . . . a run-of-the-mill Chevron deference case.”
Continue reading »
Posted in Round-up
Maryland’s state supreme court, the Court of Appeals, has refused to reconsider a split decision barring police from collecting DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested. The denial order, issued Friday, is here. State officials have said they will now seek to take the case on to the Supreme Court, but added that they have not yet decided whether to ask the Justices to postpone the state court ruling in the meantime. (A post discussing the Maryland ruling and the state attorney general’s response can be read here; the post includes links to the decision and to the state’s motion to reconsider.)
Lower courts are divided on the issue, enhancing the chances that the Supreme Court will step in.
Posted in Maryland v. King, Cases in the Pipeline
At its May 24, 2012 Conference, the Court will consider such issues as whether police use of a Taser constitutes excessive force, the evidentiary standard to overcome the presumption of patent validity, and becoming a “fugitive” by challenging, instead of reporting for, deportation. This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.
Continue reading »
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline
The Supreme Court will again consider all seven of the pending Guantanamo Bay detainee petitions at its next Conference, on Thursday, according to the Court’s electronic docket. So far, the Court has not re-listed the New Haven firefighters’ case (New Haven v. Briscoe, 11-1024), another petition not acted upon this morning. The docket shows that Comcast Corp.v. Behrend (11-864) has been re-listed for Thursday.
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline
FINAL UPDATE 12:01 p.m.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to examine, at its next Term, the federal government’s latest attempt to shield from court review its system of secret monitoring of global communications in search of terrorist threats. In a brief order, the Justices agreed to decide whether groups and individuals fearing that their sensitive conversations will be monitored have a right to go to court to challenge that program. The constitutionality of the program itself is not at issue.
This case will mark the Justices’ return to “war on terrorism” issues after a hiatus this Term. They accepted the one case that had been filed by the government. Seven other cases, all involving legal claims of detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were ready for action on Monday, but the Court did not deal with any of those; presumably, they will come up again shortly, perhaps at Thursday’s private Conference.
Continue reading »
Posted in Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, Detainee Litigation, Featured, Merits Cases
This morning the Court issued orders from the May 17 Conference. It granted one new case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, which presents the question whether Amnesty International lacks standing to seek prospective relief when it proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire its international communications using 50 U.S.C. 1881a-authorized surveillance and did not show that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a-authorized surveillance would likely redress its purported injuries. The Court did not call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases.
The Court also announced three opinions this morning. Continue reading »
Posted in Merits Cases
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders and opinions are issued today. The Live Blog window is below the jump. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser. Updates will appear without the need for refreshing.
Continue reading »
Posted in Live, Merits Cases
This weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on the news that the D.C. Circuit on Friday rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, setting up the possibility that the Court could review the issue next Term. David McLaughlin of Bloomberg News, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, Pete Yost of the Associated Press, the Christian Science Monitor’s Warren Richey, Marcia Coyle of the BLT, and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog’s Joe Palazzolo all report on the decision.
The Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence also continues to make news. In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes discusses amicus briefs filed on both sides in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, the challenge to a decision by the Montana Supreme Court upholding that state’s prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures. At the Huffington Post, Mike Sacks focuses primarily on the amicus brief filed by Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse, who urge the Court to deny review, while Matt Gouras of the Associated Press has coverage of an amicus brief submitted by twenty-two states and the District of Columbia in support of Montana.
Briefly: Continue reading »
Posted in Round-up
On Monday the Court granted one case and issued three opinions in argued cases. Details are here.
On Thursday the Court issued two opinions. Details are here.
Posted in This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court is accustomed to having the last word on matters of constitutional interpretation. But in the application of First Amendment free speech principles to restrictions on corporate campaign spending, the Montana Supreme Court invoked one of the lessons from first-year law school – that facts matter – to uphold state restrictions on independent corporate spending in elections. Now, that court’s December 2011 decision appears to have set the Montana court on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will soon decide whether (and how) it will review the ruling.
In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and labor unions have a First Amendment right to engage in independent spending to influence elections. By a vote of five to four, the Justices overturned their own precedents and struck down a portion of federal election law that prohibited corporations and labor unions from spending their own funds directly to urge support for political candidates.
Continue reading »
Posted in Citizens United v. FEC, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, Featured, SCOTUS for law students
