Breaking News :

Breaking News :

Friday round-up

By on Sep 12, 2014 at 8:04 am

Briefly:

  • In June, the Court held in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus that a pre-enforcement challenge to an Ohio law prohibiting false statements in campaigns can go forward, when the challenge is brought by a group that has been previously been accused of violating the law and is at risk of being accused again. At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen reports that, on remand, a federal district court has now struck down the law itself.
  • On Saturday at 6 p.m., C-SPAN Radio will continue its series on historic oral arguments and what they might mean for current cases with a show on Virginia v. Black and Elonis v. United States.
  • At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses a recent article by Erin Morrow Hawley in which Hawley suggests that, in its June decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, “all nine Justices . . . made ‘a serious mistake’ in failing to address, much less mention, a jurisdictional problem.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, economists Henry Aaron, David Cutler, and Peter Orszag urge the Court to “wait to see what the lower courts dobefore deciding whether to intervene” in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies for individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges established by the federal government, rather than a state.

Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Sep 11, 2014 at 10:13 pm

The petition of the day is:

Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C.
14-103

Issue: Whether Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code grants bankruptcy judges discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application.

hearing loop

The Court has announced that, when it resumes oral arguments in October, visitors will be able to use a new “induction loop” assistive listening system that has been installed in the Courtroom.  Visitors who use hearing aids or cochlear implants that include a telecoil (a small copper wire which boosts magnetic signals) will automatically experience improved sound quality and clarity simply by switching on their telecoil; no additional equipment is required.  Visitors who do not wear telecoil-enabled hearing devices, but who wish to take advantage of the loop system, may borrow a headset from the Court that will give them the same benefits as those with telecoil-enabled hearing aids and implants. Continue reading »

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on Sep 11, 2014 at 6:24 am

The big news out of the Court yesterday came in the challenges to several states’ bans on same-sex marriage:  the seven petitions that have been filed so far will all be considered by the Justices at their private Conference on September 29.  Lyle Denniston reported on the latest developments for this blog; other coverage comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today and Ariane de Vogue of ABC News. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Sep 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm

The petition of the day is:

Williams v. Hastings
13-1221

Issue: Whether and under what circumstances a federal prisoner may use 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when an intervening and retroactively applicable statutory decision of this Court demonstrates that his sentence his unlawful.

Matching the speed of lawyers and lower courts in handling the same-sex marriage controversy, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set the stage for its first look at all of the pending cases, when the Justices assemble on September 29 for a private Conference.

Seven petitions — three from Virginia, and one each from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin — will be submitted to the Justices at that session.  There is, of course, no certainty that they will act on any or all of them at that point, but the option is there.  With all sides agreeing that the time to rule is now, it would be a surprise if the Court opted to bypass the issue altogether in its new Term.

Continue reading »

This is the second installment of “Petitions to watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Court’s September 29 “Long Conference.”  Because the Court has not considered new petitions since the end of June, the number of petitions slated for review at the September 29 Conference is quite large – more than at any other Conference of the year. Therefore, we are posting our list of petitions to watch at the “Long Conference” in three separate installments. This second installment includes petitions seeking review of issues such as the jurisdiction of tribal courts to adjudicate civil tort claims against non-members, disparate-impact claims under the Fair Housing Act, and the dismissal of a lawsuit as a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.  The first installment is available here.

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.  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.

Continue reading »

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Sep 10, 2014 at 7:42 am

Yesterday Indiana and Wisconsin both filed petitions asking the Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit striking down their respective bans on same-sex marriage.  Lyle covered the filings for this blog; other coverage comes from Lauren Raab of the Los Angeles Times and Tim Evans of the Indianapolis Star (via USA Today). Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Sep 9, 2014 at 10:10 pm

The petition of the day is:

Alger v. California
13-1102

Issue: (1) Whether petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the state failed to call an available medical expert who had not previously been cross-examined to testify in a murder trial and instead called a medical examiner as a percipient scientific witness who was not involved in the autopsy and entered the autopsy report into evidence where the main issue in the case is manner of death; (2) whether, when an autopsy report is entered into evidence and the person who drafted the report is available, but not called and was not previously cross-examined, the autopsy is testimonial and its admission into evidence therefore violates petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights; (3) whether the trial court erred in using the standard under People v. Marsden to decide whether petitioner could replace his public defender with privately retained counsel.

UPDATED 6:31 p.m.  All of today’s filings in the two cases have now been linked.

————

With lawyers moving very rapidly, the number of appeals to the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage rose on Tuesday to seven, as state officials in Indiana and Wisconsin separately challenged a federal appeals court ruling against their bans, and lawyers for the couples planned to file immediate replies.  The new cases landed at the Court five days after that decision; the states had the option of taking ninety days to file.

Along with the two new filings, the Court has awaiting it individual petitions on the issue from Oklahoma and Utah and three from Virginia.  In all of the cases, both sides and a lengthening list of “friends of the Court” have agreed that the Court should take on the constitutional controversy now.  The Court may indicate as early as tomorrow which of the seven cases, if any, will be considered by the Justices at their first Conference of the new Term, on September 29.

The Indiana petition is here, the couples’ response to that petition is here, the Wisconsin filing is here, and the couples’ response to that petition is here.

Continue reading »

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards