Academic round-up
The reliability of eyewitness identification has been the subject of thousands of academic articles, and will now be taken up again by the Court in Perry v. New Hampshire.
Every post published in September 2011, most recent first.
The reliability of eyewitness identification has been the subject of thousands of academic articles, and will now be taken up again by the Court in Perry v. New Hampshire.
Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid is a tricky case of statutory construction that will be argued at the Court on October 11, 2011. At issue are the coverage provisions for workers’ compensation benefits under one of many overlapping schemes that are dedicated to that issue.
On Monday, we will launch the new SCOTUSblog Community. The Community is essentially a discussion board. I will pick a new topic each business day. Each topic will presumptively remain open for one week. We at the blog will contribute our own opening thoughts.
On October 4, in Howes v. Fields, the Court will consider whether a prisoner is always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona whenever he is isolated from the general prison population.
More coverage and analysis of health care filings at the Court; previews of the upcoming Term and its cases.
At 10 a.m. Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on a major test case on anti-discrimination laws and how far they may go to protect parochial school teachers from workplace bias.
The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, has been percolating in the lower courts since its enactment in 2006. Convicted sex offenders seem to have attacked its registration requirements every which way, leaving a trail of lower court opinions that address everything from congressional authority to enact SORNA to the Tenth Amendment and related federalism concerns.
The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases in its public session next Monday, the opening day of the new Term. The first case, starting at 10 a.m., grows out of challenges by health care providers in California to the state’s several moves to cut reimbursements for providing medical care for the poor and the disabled.
Yesterday’s health-care-related filings were the big news at the Court. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision holding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate unconstitutional, as well as a response to the petition for certiorari seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision rejecting a facial challenge to the individual mandate.
The following Argument Preview is written by Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law (especially the separation of powers), national security law, and international criminal law.