Every post published in January 2009, most recent first.
Stanford student Scott Noveck discusses oral argument in Kansas v. Ventris. Scott’s earlier discussion of the case is available here, on SCOTUSwiki. Kansas Solicitor General Stephen R. McAllister led off with a brief oral argument that saw only sparse questioning from the justices.
A high-profile U.S. criminal prosecution of intelligence agents of the Cuban government, at a trial in the midst of the large community of Cuban-Americans in Miami, reached the Supreme Court on Friday as the center of a broad new test of the right to a fair trial.
Update Friday p.m. The case has now been docketed as 08-964. Unless the time for a response is extended, it is due on March 2. —————– Not since 1981 has the Supreme Court undertaken to spell out the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights — the exclusive rights to produce or use an invented device or process, or to license it to others for a royalty fee.
UPDATE Thursday p.m. President Obama signed the legislation into law on Thursday. A White House statement about the signing is here.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court today. The Court is in a four-week recess. Oral arguments resume on February 23.
Stanford student Daniel Matro discusses last Wednesday’s oral argument in Corley v. US (07-10441). On Wednesday, the Court debated the fate of the McNabb-Mallory rule in light of Congress’s 1968 enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 and the Court’s Miranda jurisprudence.
Stanford student JP Schnapper-Casteras discusses oral argument in Boyle v. US (No. 07-1309). JP’s earlier work on the case is available on SCOTUSwiki, here.
No oral arguments are scheduled at the Court this week. Oral arguments will resume February 23. On Monday, the Court will release the orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday.
Today’s orders list is now available here. The Court granted certiorari in three cases: McDaniel v. Brown (08-559), Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter (08-678), and Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680). The filings are available after the jump.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to clarify the power of police to resume questioning of a suspect, if there is a time lapse between the individual’s request for a lawyer and the start of new interrogation — in this case, a lapse of more than two years. This was one of three newly granted cases.