The Supreme Court will release orders from the March 22 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood’s Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 29 conference.
The blog is beginning the hiring process for a new blog manager. The blog manager’s job includes, but is not limited to:
- Coordinating case coverage, online symposia and additional blog content;
- Assisting editor with editing process, particularly for blog’s style guidelines;
- Maintaining publication schedule and preparing posts for review and publication;
- Updating and maintaining case pages, statistics page, sidebar content and rest of website;
- Managing contractors, interns and vendors, including outside web developer;
- Coordinating with blog sponsor on promotional and technical needs;
- Attending to daily social media presence, including responding to feedback and questions;
- Applying, as applicable, for grants and awards;
- Assisting deputy blog manager as needed with office management, including research, special projects and other tasks for publisher Tom Goldstein;
- Producing SCOTUStalk podcast;
- Collecting ongoing term statistics and preparing interim and annual Stat Packs;
- Writing posts, with ability to take initiative on topics, and coordinating and contributing to “live blogs”;
- Contributing to broader blog strategy and the execution of new features.
The qualifications for the position include:
- Excellent organizational skills and attention to detail;
- Excellent writing and editing skills;
- Strong interest in learning about the U.S. Supreme Court and its workings;
- Strong interest in online media and journalism;
- Demonstrated experience with legal issues or journalism is a plus, though not a requirement, as is an interest in attending law school;
- Willingness to be a team player – all of the above responsibilities are done with other people;
- Ability to improvise – we occasionally need all hands on deck both during and outside of normal business hours.
A commitment of at least two years is required. The position will begin in mid- to late summer. To apply, please send a cover letter, resume, transcript (either official or unofficial), and unedited writing sample (no more than five pages) to jlevitan@scotusblog.com and ahamm@scotusblog.com by April 22. Salary is competitive and commensurate with experience. This position is located in Bethesda, Maryland.
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in:
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, holding that parties who enforce security interests are not debt collectors within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provided that they do no more than the bare minimum required by state law to enforce the security interest. Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion for the court is short and primarily focused on the text of the statute. After the argument, in which the justices sounded skeptical about the petitioner’s reading of the text, this outcome is hardly surprising. Indeed, the most notable thing about this case is probably Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence.
Continue reading »
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether federal preclusion principles limit the what defenses a defendant can raise when a plaintiff asserts new claims and when a state law might be exempt from the dormant commerce clause.
The petitions of the week are:
18-1086
Issue: Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
18-1097
Issues: (1) Whether a state law is exempt from the dormant commerce clause merely because it does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and (2) whether a state law is exempt from the dormant commerce clause merely because Congress has passed a federal statute saving the law from pre-emption under that statute.
Amy Howe analyzes Wednesday’s oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks whether a Mississippi prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court; she reports that “[a]fter nearly an hour of oral argument that included the first questions by Justice Clarence Thomas since 2016, there seemed to be at least five justices who agree with [death-row inmate Curtis] Flowers.” Another recap of the oral argument comes from Anna Salvatore at High School SCOTUS. The editorial board of The New York Times writes that “the court is once again poised to send a message that racism has no place in the courtroom — this time in the area of jury selection, which remains an especially urgent issue in capital cases.”
Continue reading »
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in the case of an African-American death-row inmate in Mississippi who was convicted by a jury that included just one African-American juror. The inmate, Curtis Flowers, argues that the jury selection in his case violates the Constitution – especially because the lead prosecutor had a long history of eliminating potential African-American jurors from the jury pool. After nearly an hour of oral argument that included the first questions by Justice Clarence Thomas since 2016, there seemed to be at least five justices who agree with Flowers.
Sheri Lynn Johnson for petitioner (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
Mark Walsh has a first-hand look at yesterday’s argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks whether a prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution, for this blog. At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that the court “signaled strongly … that it is likely to rule for a death row inmate in Mississippi who was prosecuted six times for the same crime by a prosecutor with a history of racial bias in jury selection.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[a] key issue in the argument was whether the Supreme Court, in deciding the case before it, could take into consideration only Flowers’ most recent trial or also look at the race-laced record of the previous five trials.” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]he Supreme Court seemed largely united in its sympathy for Flowers and in the feeling that [prosecutor Doug] Evans’s prior conduct was relevant.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that the “dramatic arguments … concluded with a rare question from Justice Clarence Thomas.”
Continue reading »
This morning the justices issued a per curiam opinion vacating the decision of the lower court in Frank v. Gaos. They had granted review in that case to consider the propriety of so-called “cy pres” settlements – settlements of class actions that distribute all or a part of the monetary relief to public-interest or charitable recipients instead of the named plaintiffs. In this case, for example, the lower courts awarded $8.5 million in monetary relief in a suit brought by plaintiffs alleging that Google’s privacy practices violated the Stored Communications Act. Because the amount of the settlement per plaintiff was quite small (less than a dime), the district court concluded that it was impracticable to distribute funds to the plaintiffs and instead ordered that the funds be paid to several initiatives studying internet privacy and information sharing. Many have challenged cy pres settlements as an inappropriate exercise of the judicial power, reasoning that an award that does not provide redress to the injured parties is not proper, and the justices granted review here to assess that practice.
Continue reading »
With a three-justice plurality opinion, a two-justice concurrence in the judgment and two dissents, Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den appears unusually fractured at first glance. But the disagreements among seven of the justices are relatively small, turning largely on whether and why Washington’s motor-fuel tax really burdens the Yakama treaty right to travel. Only the dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, indicates a fundamental disagreement about the rules of tribal treaty interpretation.
Continue reading »
Submit Event
