on Oct 4, 2016 at 8:15 am
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two criminal cases, the double jeopardy case Bravo-Fernandez v. United States and Shaw v. United States, which involves a conviction under the federal bank fraud statute. Rory Little previewed Bravo-Fernandez for this blog; another preview comes from Liza Carens and Jenna Scoville at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. This blog’s preview of Shaw comes from Amy Howe, while Laurel Hopkins and Eugene Temchenko from Cornell also take a look at the case. Additional previews of the cases appear in The George Washington Law Review’s On The Docket.
Yesterday, the court granted leave to file in two original jurisdiction cases, which it consolidated, and asked for the views of the solicitor general in seven other cases, two of which arise from the same lower court ruling. The court also denied rehearing in United States v. Texas, in which the justices deadlocked 4-4 last term, leaving intact a lower court decision blocking implementation of the Obama administration’s immigration policy. Amy Howe covered the order list for this blog. Additional coverage of the ruling in the immigration case, along with other denials of review, comes from Richard Wolf at USA Today, Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed, and Jurist. At Education Week (subscription or registration required), Mark Walsh covers the court’s denials of review in several education-related cases.
In Sports Illustrated, Michael McCann reports on the court’s denial of review yesterday in a case brought by Ed O’Bannon, a former college basketball star, and other athletes against the NCAA, involving the NCAA’s rules on amateurism in college sports. Adam Liptak of The New York Times also covers the denial.
More previews of the Supreme Court’s new term herald the start of oral arguments today. In The Guardian, Megan Carpentier takes a look at the six cases on the argument calendar that “could have the broadest implications.” For Vice, Taylor Dolven highlights “eight of the key cases to look out for this term.” Charles Paul Hoffman in Fusion surveys several cases that “raise social justice issues, especially involving race.” In The Hill, Brianne Gorod also comments on several upcoming cases involving racial bias in the criminal justice system, the role of race in the electoral system, and the ability of municipalities to sue banks under federal fair housing law. At First Mondays (podcast), Ian Samuel and Dan Epps “raise the curtain” on the new term. In USA Today, Richard Wolf reports on how Justice Antonin Scalia’s influence on the Supreme Court “lives on in the cases the court has granted, denied and delayed.”
Commentary on the new term comes from The New York Times, whose editorial board deplores the continued stalemate over filling the vacant seat on the court, pointing out that “the Republicans have shut down” the confirmation process “entirely out of fear that the near half-century of conservative control of the court could come to an end.” The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle also weighs in on the effect of the vacancy on the court’s ability to do its job, wondering whether “the eight justices [can] produce a ruling on anything controversial.”
Wednesday’s insider trading case, Salman v. United States, has provoked comment, including an op-ed in Forbes by Noel Francisco and James Burnham, who argue that “one reason why the law of insider trading is such a confused mess” “is that federal judges often refuse to dismiss criminal charges that are based on an incorrect understanding of what the law actually prohibits.” At Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky Blog, Michael Guttentag argues that the “problems” with requiring that a stock tip must confer a personal benefit on the tipper in order to trigger insider trading liability have become “insurmountable.” Cody Barnett analyzes the case in the Kentucky Law Journal, and the Stanford Law Review has posted an online symposium exploring “how Salman might shape the landscape of insider trading jurisprudence in the years to come.”
At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser and Carimah Townes discuss Buck v. Davis, also scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, a death penalty case in which the role of “race is front and center.” At Casetext, David Boyle shares his observations on the case.
At her eponymous blog, Amy Howe reports that eight women — an unusually large number compared to last term — are scheduled to argue before the court this month. In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro also remarks on the relatively large number of female advocates who will take to the lectern in October, noting that “female Supreme Court advocates are not as common as might be expected—especially women coming from private law firms rather than government entities.”
At NPR, Nina Totenberg interviews Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, observing that Ginsburg “didn’t sound like a woman eager to retire.” Elaine Showalter at The New Republic offers a profile of Ginsburg, charting the justice’s increased impatience “with the glacial pace of judicial progress” and concluding that “Ginsburg could actually be more influential outside the court, where she could speak freely, than by remaining on the bench.”
- Constitution Daily previews Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, a copyright case on the Supreme Court’s docket that “involves an iconic American clothing symbol: the cheerleader’s uniform.”
- Lisa Soronen reports on the cases the court agreed to review at its “long conference” that affect state governments at the National Conference of State Legislators Blog; she recaps the recent cert grants with implications for local governments for the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog.
- At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman surveys the attorneys participating in the cases on the court’s docket so far, concluding that even though the balance on the court may shift with new appointments, “there is and likely will at least continue to be stability in the attorneys and firms that file briefs and argue before the Justices.”
- At Law360 (subscription or registration required), Ed Beeson profiles long-time Supreme Court reporter and SCOTUSblog contributor Lyle Denniston, focusing on Denniston’s experiences at the blog, from which he retired at the end of last term.
Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.