Argument recap: Close call on Title VII retaliation case

Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.  As I explained in the preview, at issue in the case is whether a Title VII plaintiff alleging retaliation must show that retaliation was the “but for” cause of his termination or was instead simply one of several “motivating factors.”  [...]

Argument recap: Who makes law?

Analysis A close student of the criminal law who did not sit in on Wednesday’s Supreme Court argument in a Michigan murder case missed a fascinating — and far from conclusive — seminar on who makes criminal law: courts that rule, legislatures that write laws, lawyers who try to assert defenses, prosecutors who don’t object to such defenses, [...]

Opinion recap: Easing a severe drug law

If a non-citizen living legally in the U.S. gets convicted in state court for ”social sharing of a small amount of marijuana,” the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, that individual should not be subject to automatic deportation, with no chance to stay in the U.S. or no chance to return if once sent away. The Court, by a [...]

Argument recap: Killing an argument in one easy blow

Analysis Sometimes the Supreme Court Justices can strain throughout an argument to imagine a hypothetical that gets to the heart of the case, and never quite come up with one — although the current Court’s imagination is rich with such scenarios.  But on Tuesday, a single, simple hypothetical said it all.  And in the process, [...]

Argument recap: Looking for the less wrong answer

At today’s argument in Hillman v. Maretta, the Justices disagreed with both sides’ readings of the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA).  While Justice Scalia commented that petitioner Jacqueline Hillman’s understanding of the statute’s purpose was “blown away” by its terms, Justice Alito stated that he could not see “what [other] purpose Congress could [...]

Argument recap: Anxiously seeking simplicity

Analysis No matter how two lawyers tried to simplify their arguments before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Justices often acted as if there just had to be a way to reduce them down even more.  The Court seemed to be grasping for a way to understand more clearly the two stark alternatives it was [...]

Opinion analysis: If the agreement governs, the agreement governs

On Tuesday, the Court issued a split decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, handing a partial victory to each side.  As discussed in our preview, McCutchen involves a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that allows a health plan administrator to file a lawsuit seeking “appropriate equitable relief . . . [...]

Argument recap: Keep on truckin’?

At Tuesday’s argument in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, the Court tried to sort out whether certain actions taken by the Port of Los Angeles, an independent division of the city, are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA).  As I explained in my previous post, the case involves [...]

Kiobel commentary: An ATS answer with many questions (and the possibility of a brave new world of transnational litigation)

SCOTUSblog is pleased to have reactions from supporters of both sides to yesterday’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. This post is written by Trey Childress, Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law and a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at the Washington & Lee University School of Law during the 2012-2013 [...]

Argument recap: Nothing surprising except who sits where

This little-noticed case (United States v. Davila ) was argued Monday, addressing the question whether every “judicial participation” violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) requires “automatic reversal,” despite Rule 11(h)’s direction that harmless error review should be applied to all Rule 11 “variance[s].”  As my preview indicated, the answer plainly seems to be [...]

« Previous Page — Next Page »