Every post published in May 2007, most recent first.
The Court is holding a private Conference today to discuss new and pending cases. Our list of “Petitions to Watch” for this Conference can be found here. Regular orders relating to today’s Conference are scheduled to be released Monday at 10 AM eastern.
In a prior post, we described some of the comments made by some experienced Supreme Court practitioners on proposed revisions to the Court’s rules at a forum hosted by the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute.
UPDATE, 2 p.m. Michael Dwyer, assistant federal public defender in St. Louis, formally notified the Supreme Court on Thursday that Mario Claiborne had died.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal on April 30 to hear the appeals of two Guantanamo Bay detainees now facing war crimes trials, the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled that it has no authority to stop those trials from opening next Monday.
Yesterday, Robert Barnes hosted a discussion of the Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co.; the transcript is available here. NPR’s Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on “Morning Edition” yesterday; Tony Mauro reports here for the Legal Times; and Richard Thompson Ford has this piece at Slate.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today from the Supreme Court. The next day for orders and opinions is June 4.
UPDATE June 4: The case has now been docketed as 06-1613. UPDATE Thursday p.m. The Constitution Project on Thursday released a report urging Congress to narrow the “state secrets” privilege that is at issue in the petition for review discussed in this post.
The latest edition of “Conference Call” in Legal Times (column archive here; subscription req’d) featured petitions to watch for the Justices’ Conference of 5/31.
On Friday the SG’s office filed this brief recommending that the Court deny cert. in No. 06-457, Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.
The blogosphere has been treated in recent days to a group of law professors of varying ideological preferences pronouncing it within Congress’ constitutional powers (some even said “well within”) to compel the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of oral arguments.