Every post published in March 2017, most recent first.
At Politico, Josh Gerstein and Seung Min Kin report that Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch “submitted 76 pages of answers Thursday to written questions senators asked after the conclusion of the nominee’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, but remained cagey about his personal
The blog and Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are looking for someone to serve as both the firm manager for Goldstein & Russell, P.C., and the deputy manager of SCOTUSblog.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Lee v. United States Turner v. United States Honeycutt v. United States
I think that neither the merchants nor the card networks will be jubilant about the Supreme Court’s narrow decision yesterday in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, which does little except prolong the litigation about the constitutionality of a New York statute that prohibits merchants from charging a surcharge to customers who use credit cards.
The law of asset forfeiture has become intricate and complicated since Congress enacted and subsequently amended several forfeiture statutes, beginning in 1970. Some of those complexities were explored in Wednesday morning’s argument in Honeycutt v. United States.
Yesterday the court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Turner v. United States, which involves the scope of the prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule in a 1984 Washington, D.C., murder case. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. In the old days when I had nothing but time, I would have found it impossible to resist the temptation to speculate about the serial relist in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111.
At the oral argument Monday morning in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the justices finally got their chance to weigh in on one of the Federal Circuit’s most controversial rules – its longstanding conclusion that corporate patent defendants are subject to suit in any district in which they do business, as opposed to only the state in which they are incorporated.
In its conference of March 31, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability; whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his
Today the court will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Turner v. United States, which involves the scope of the prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.