Argument preview: Measuring mental handicap
At 10 a.m. next Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the authority of states to define mental handicap in determining eligibility for a death sentence.
February 2014 Archive
Every post published in February 2014, most recent first.
Showing 1 - 1086 Results
Friday round-up
Although the Court did not hear oral arguments yesterday, oral arguments were nonetheless the big news relating to the Court yesterday, with the online release of bootleg videos – believed to be the first ones ever – taken at the Court.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Executing the intellectually impaired
In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute persons who were mentally retarded – a condition for which mental health organizations now use the term “intellectually disabled.” On Monday in the case of Hall v. Florida, the Justices will consider how states should determine when a defendant in a capital case is intellectually disabled.
Opinion analysis: Scope of federal preclusion of state law actions
In the recently decided Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice decision, the Supreme Court – in an opinion by Justice Breyer – held that federal law does not preclude the state-law-based actions (filed in Louisiana and Texas) filed against those who allegedly assisted in some capacity (including insurance brokers and law firms) in the fraudulent sales of Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit.
Editor’s Note
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 28 Conference. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:45 a.m.
Symposium: Accommodations, religious freedom, and the Hobby Lobby case
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Richard Garnett, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. Every law student learns and every lawyer knows that there is more to “doing law” than simply looking up or even arguing for the right answers.
Argument recap: Justices hard to read in twin disputes about attorney’s fees in patent litigation
The Justices spent their Tuesday morning considering when prevailing parties can recover attorney’s fees in patent cases.
Thursday round-up
Perhaps the biggest news out of the Court yesterday was created by Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles, who interrupted the oral arguments to protest the Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Symposium: Under a straight-forward reading of constitutional text and history and fundamentals of corporate law, Hobby Lobby’s claims fail
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center.
Argument report: Justices skeptical of mortgage fraudster
The Justices seemed uncharacteristically out of sync at the argument Tuesday in Robers v. United States.