Order List

Monday, March 20th, 2006 10:11 am | Amy Howe | Print This Post

The order list (which, as Lyle notes below, has no new grants) is available here.



5 Comments »



  1. The orders list does, however, contain a summary affirmance in Nitke v. Gonzales, No. 05-526, on the Communications Decency Act. This is one of those rare birds where Congress has provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court, rather the usual discretionary writ of certiorari.

    Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 20, 2006 @ 10:26 am

  2. Also, Justice Alito has joined the other 7 justices who are willing to bar in advance in forma pauperis civil matters from litigious individuals. See 05-8562

    Comment by r.friedman — March 20, 2006 @ 10:43 am

  3. Jonathan Pollard lost his latest appeal as well.

    Comment by federalist — March 20, 2006 @ 11:07 am

  4. Is it just me, or did the Court just implicitly endorse (in the Nitke affirmation) a radically stricter definition of overbreadth? Apologies for the specific post, but I’ve been writing an article on Nitke and this summary decision caught me off guard.

    The panel decision acknowledges at least one organization that refrains from posting material on its website because it would likely be seen as offensive in some communities though not in others, and allows that Nitke herself has refrained from posting as well. But it upholds the CDA because “[t]he plaintiffs have offered insufficient evidence to enable us to make a finding, however, as to how many of those sites might be considered obscene, let alone how many would be considered obscene in at least one community while considered not obscene in others.”

    Is this a new, tighter standard? Or am I reading too much into a summary decision?

    Comment by cjd — March 20, 2006 @ 1:57 pm

  5. The precedential force of summary affirmances has long been murky. That is one reason why Congress has limited the Court’s appeal docket (as distinguished from its certiorari docket) to very few cases. Arguably, it should be fewer still.

    Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 20, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.