Divisiveness by the numbers: A look at OT 2007
Last Thursday marked the end of the Supreme Court’s October Term 2007, and once again, Court-watchers are looking to describe the overall theme of the term.
Every post published in June 2008, most recent first.
Last Thursday marked the end of the Supreme Court’s October Term 2007, and once again, Court-watchers are looking to describe the overall theme of the term.
In a significant rebuff of Pentagon policy on detainees, the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled that individuals cannot be labeled as enemies of the U.S. based on “bare assertions” not supported by “independent sources” that would make the claims reliable.
While the Supreme Court’s opinions this Term produced sweeping rulings on the death penalty and on the rights of enemy combatants, the criminal law docket in OT07 was all about the details.
In the first attempt to get the Supreme Court to clarify the rights of crime victims under a 2004 federal law, lawyers for 12 victims of an explosion three years ago at an oil refinery in Texas have asked the Supreme Court to delay a federal judge’s action on a plea agreement that would settle federal criminal charges against a large oil company.
NOTE: The legal controversies arising out of the war-on-terrorism often lead to important tests of major Supreme Court precedents. The decision discussed here examines the scope of the Court’s 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, allowing money damage claims against federal officials for violating individuals’ constitutional rights.
The Court has recessed for the summer. The opening conference for next term is scheduled for September 29, and oral arguments will resume October 6. On Tuesday, the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society will host separate panels reviewing the recently completed term.
Analysis Eighteen years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia complained that a Supreme Court decision he did not join carried an Orwellian message, abhorrent to the Constitution. He wrote, sarcastically: “Attention all citizens.
Lawyers for the Pentagon and for detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay have already engaged in a debate — at least in summary form — over the meaning of the Supreme Court’s June 12 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195).
The National Rifle Association on Friday began its courthouse campaign to extend the Second Amendment in order to restrict gun control laws in San Francisco, Chicago and three Chicago suburbs.
Not surprisingly, yesterday’s decision in DC v. Heller (07-290) has generated a lot of interest in both the media and legal blog communities. Below, we’ve linked to a number of the substantive articles and posts currently available. Nina Totenberg’s coverage on NPR can be accessed here.