Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

The Court heard oral argument in two cases yesterday.  In Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds the Court is considering whether the deadline to file certain insider trading claims is delayed until the insider discloses the trades in reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In his coverage of the argument for Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “the justices signaled they were reluctant to erect a rigid rule on the time limit,” while Mark Sherman of the Associated Press remarks that the informal tone of the arguments “start[ed] sounding like a schoolyard.”  Dan Rivoli of the International Business Times also provides coverage of the argument.  In Hall v. United States the Court is considering whether capital gains taxes created by the sale of a family farm during a Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding are payable as an administrative expense under the bankruptcy reorganization plan. Kiera provides links to the transcripts in both cases here.

Today the Court will hear arguments in Setser v. United States, in which the Court is considering whether a federal court can order a federal criminal sentence to start running only after the defendant has finished serving a state sentence when that sentence has not yet been imposed, and Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, in which the Court is considering whether mental or emotional injuries count as actual damages for purposes of the Privacy Act.  Michael Dimino previewed Setser for this blog; Alex Wohl previewed Cooper for us, while Bill Mears at CNN also provides a lengthy preview of the case.

Monday’s order list continued to generate coverage yesterday.  The Philadelphia Inquirer’s PhillyPharma blog and the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog both discuss the grant in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. in which the Court will consider whether the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “outside sales exemption” applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.  At BNA, Robert C. Cook covers the grant in Southern Union Co. v. United States, in which the company is challenging a six-million-dollar criminal fine for its illegal storage of mercury.  At her Appellate Daily blog, Michelle Olsen explains why the Court appointed Miguel Estrada as an amicus to defend the judgment below in the consolidated cases Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States. Kent Scheidegger at the blog Crime and Consequences also discusses Hill and Dorsey, commenting on a recent New York Times article on the cases, which Nabiha included in yesterday’s round-up.

Calls for the recusal of Justices Kagan, Scalia and Thomas in the upcoming health care cases continue to generate press.  At CNN, Bill Mears reports that “[n]one of the justices appear ready to step aside [which] legal analysts say is both proper and expected,” while at the New York Times blog The Loyal Opposition Andrew Rosenthal argues that “the calls for recusal are not exactly parallel.”  Finally, Jessica M. Karmasey of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform’s Legal Newsline reports on a recent request by the nonprofit group Justice at Stake for Justices Thomas and Kagan to provide a public explanation of the reasoning behind their decision not to recuse themselves.

Finally, at this blog Ronald Mann recaps Monday’s argument in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, while Christopher Wright recaps Monday’s argument in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards.


  • At this blog, Orin Kerr previews next week’s argument in Messerschmidt v. Millender, while and Edward Hartnett has a preview of the argument in Martel v. Clair.
  • Kirsten Nussbaumer of PrawfsBlawg analyzes the issues in Louisiana v. Bryson, in which Louisiana is asking the Court to exclude undocumented immigrants from the federal census for purposes of allotting seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  (Lyle reported on the case for this blog shortly after it was filed.) 
  • Anna M. Tinsley and Aman Batheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram cover the Texas Attorney General’s recent request to have the Court delay the implementation of a new redistricting plan for the two chambers of the state’s legislature.  (Lyle reported on the case last weekend, and Joshua gathered other coverage of the case in the round-up on Monday.)

Recommended Citation: Conor McEvily, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 30, 2011, 10:30 AM),