Every post published in September 2007, most recent first.
(NOTE TO READERS: The lower court decision discussed below, found by locating the opinion in 06-1760 at this link, contains explicit language that some readers will find not to their taste. The blog, in a gesture of modesty and delicacy, will avoid repeating those words, substituting a euphemism.)
No non-capital orders are expected to be issued today from the Court. The October Term 2007 is scheduled to begin Monday, Oct. 1. Bottom side briefs are due today in John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United States (06-1164).
The hearing list, which lists counsel who will represent the parties at oral argument, can be found here.
In a highly unusual order, two judges of the D.C. Circuit Court appeared to have narrowed a major gun control ruling, and in doing so gave their view on a central argument the District of Columbia government has made in its Supreme Court appeal seeking to enforce its flat ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The District does not ban rifles or shotguns.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government may permit aliens who are otherwise eligible for deportation to instead depart the country voluntarily, often within a period of 60 days.
The following summary was written by Shannen Naegel, a tax associate at Akin Gump’s office in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider whether intent to make a return of capital is required for funds diverted and distributed to a shareholder of a corporation without earnings and profits to qualify as non-taxable return of capital in the context of a criminal trial for tax evasion.
No non-capital orders are expected to be issued today from the Court. The October Term 2007 is scheduled to begin Monday, Oct. 1.
Six years ago, in Buckman v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, the Supreme Court held that state-law claims alleging that the manufacturer of orthopedic bone screws made fraudulent representations to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) were impliedly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Even before the Justices have decided whether to hear a case, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is willing to step in and state its interest—more willing, in fact, than any other organization.
Can the counsel for a federal criminal defendant waive that defendant’s constitutional right to have an Article III judge, or must the defendant himself explicitly agree? This is the question presented in Gonzalez v. United States, one of the seventeen new cases in which cert. was granted Tuesday.