on Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 am
Yesterday the Court released orders from its January 22 Conference and four opinions in argued cases. Molly Runkle rounded up early coverage for this blog.
Additional coverage of yesterday’s ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana, holding that the Court’s 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review, comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, and Taylor Isaac for JURIST.
Additional coverage of yesterday’s ruling that the Federal Power Act provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators’ compensation of demand response bids comes from Robin Bravender for Greenwire, Tony Mauro for Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), and Bradley McAllister for JURIST.
In Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, the Court ruled that equitable tolling does not apply to a tribe’s contract claims against the federal government. Ronald Mann covered the ruling for this blog; other coverage comes from Bradley McAllister for JURIST,
And in Musacchio v. United States, the Court ruled against a criminal defendant, holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, rather than the elements set forth in the erroneous jury instruction. Alexandra Farone covered the decision for JURIST.
In its orders yesterday, the Court denied review in a challenge to a North Dakota law that would have banned abortion in approximately the sixth week of pregnancy; Taylor McIsaac covers that order for JURIST. The Court also declined to review a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty; Tony Mauro covers that order for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required). At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses the Court’s summary opinion in James v. City of Boise, suggesting that it “looks like a shot across the bow of the Supreme Court of Alabama,” while Ronald Mann covers the summary decision in Amgen v. Harris for this blog.
- At Balkinization, Zach Price weighs in on Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle and argues that, both “here and in the related contexts of federal Indian law (which is also before the Court this term), the Court should look beyond arid conceptions of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘delegation’ and craft a doctrine that better reflects modern realities.”
- At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment, Daniel Hemel discusses United States v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy, and suggests that, although “the administration’s strategy on the notice-and-comment issue initially seemed befuddling, it might turn out in the end to be brilliant.”
- At Crimmigration, Nicholas Anderson and Linus Chan discuss the Court’s recent grant in Mathis v. United States, arguing that although it does not involve “an immigrant or even immigration law directly,” it nonetheless “will have a significant impact on anyone facing removal from the United States based on a criminal conviction.”
- At the Fed Soc Blog, Adele Keim looks back at the argument, earlier this month, in Heffernan v. City of Paterson and contends that “the Justices would do well to re-root freedom of association in the textual ‘right of assembly.’”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Heffernan, but I am not affiliated with the firm.]