Every post published in October 2017, most recent first.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, in which the justices will consider the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status in a bankruptcy proceeding.
David Patchak probably never thought his complaint about the decision of the secretary of the Department of the Interior to take a tract of land near his home into trust for the benefit of a Michigan group known as the Gun Lake Tribe of Indians would net him two Supreme Court cases and a federal statute.
Something odd happened during Monday’s 59-minute oral argument in Ayestas v. Davis, a widely anticipated capital habeas case about funding levels for federal habeas petitions brought by indigent defendants: Justice Anthony Kennedy said nary a word.
When a state appeals court affirms a lower-court ruling without an opinion, is it endorsing the decision below? Is it rejecting it? Does the answer depend upon the nature of the lower-court ruling? Does it vary by state?
The transcript in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge is available at this link.
For the first-ever First Mondays live show, we traveled to the University of Michigan (go Blue), where we were joined by alumna Leah Litman. From Ann Arbor, we ring in the November sitting, which we think is somewhat more exciting than the popular coverage might have you believe.
When the justices hear oral argument next Monday in Merit Management Group v FTI Consulting, they will finally be turning their attention to one of this century’s most prominent disputes about how to read the Bankruptcy Code.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two criminal-procedure cases. The first is Ayestas v. Davis, which involves the standards for funding an investigation establishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a capital case. Steve Vladeck previewed the case for this blog.
Two weeks ago, Justice Elena Kagan called Justice Thurgood Marshall “the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.” Here’s another one for the folks at Guinness: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the “most important woman lawyer in the history of the republic,” doing for women’s rights what Marshall did for the rights of people of color, said Judge Ann Claire Williams yesterday.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from its conference last Friday, but the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term.