Every post published in October 2010, most recent first.
Taking a position in court for the first time on the issue of patenting human genes, when isolated outside the body, the Obama Administration opposed monopoly rights. The position runs counter to long-time government policy. The issue likely is bound for the Supreme Court.
Significant dates in the coming week.
After repeatedly showing an interest in a job bias question that has taken the name of a fable written by a 17th Century poet — the story of the “cat’s paw,” the Supreme Court finally addresses the idea in an Illinois hospital employee’s case. A variety of federal workplace bias laws likely will be affected. An eight-Justice Court will hear the case.
Gearing up for next Tuesday’s arguments in Schwarzenegger v. E.M.A.; the recusal process considered in relation to politically active Supreme Court spouses.
Daniel Thies previews United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, which is scheduled for oral argument on Monday.
The Court turns down a challenge, in the waning days of the election campaign, to a Minnesota law that controls how corporations may spend their money to try to promote or defeat candidates in state elections. The Court’s vote appeared to be unanimous, and was not explained.
The Court on Tuesday faces a potentially major constitutional conflict over Congress’s power to pass laws to control how state officials run state institutions, such as prisons. A Texas inmate’s case, however, may turn on what one such law actually means, rather than on a core constitutional powers issue. It will be decided by an eight-member Court.
Continued coverage of the Court’s five-to-four decision to lift a stay of execution; retired Justice O’Connor’s “robo-calls” raise ethics questions.
A five-four vote to lift a stay of execution; a study on the Chamber of Commerce’s success rate at the Court over time; Justice O’Connor in the news for 1 a.m. “robo-calls.”
The Court, in its first 5-4 vote of the Term and with new Justice Elena Kagan dissenting for the first time, cleared the way for the state of Arizona to carry out a death sentence using lethal drugs. The Court brushed aside the death-row inmate’s claim that the drugs to be used could cause serious pain as the execution went forward.