Today at the Supreme Court | 11.30.07
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference today, orders from which are expected to be released on Monday. Click here to see our list of “petitions to watch.”
Every post published in November 2007, most recent first.
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference today, orders from which are expected to be released on Monday. Click here to see our list of “petitions to watch.”
On Wednesday, we filed this brief on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curiae in support of the Petitioner in the case of Ali v. Achim, 06-1346. No argument date has been set, but the case will likely be argued in the February sitting.
This edition of “Ask the Author” features a conversation with Richard Lazarus about his new article entitled, “Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar,” see here.
In a move with potential consequences for the pending case Dada v. Mukasey (06-1181), the Justice Department earlier today published a proposed regulation that, if adopted, would resolve the precise question at issue – i.e. whether the time in which a noncitizen must leave the country under an order of voluntary departure should automatically toll upon the filing of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The Supreme Court next Wednesday will hold a one-hour hearing on the legal rights of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will be the Court’s fourth full-scale review of legal questions arising out of the Bush Administration’s policy against terrorism, and the continuing legal controversy has grown increasingly complex.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected today from the Court.
This edition of “Ask the Author” features a conversation with Richard Lazarus about his new article entitled, “Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar,” see here.
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Penumbra currently features an online debate between Professors Bradley Smith (Capital University Law School) and Edward Foley (Moritz College of Law-Ohio State University) on voter identification requirements and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, see here.
At 10 a.m, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn. (06-457), asking whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts a Maine state law meant to block the delivery of tobacco purchased over the Internet to teenagers.
The transcript of today’s argument in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn. (06-457) is now available here.