Every post published in September 2019, most recent first.
At Forbes, Nick Sibilla writes that the court’s decision this term in Hernandez v. Mesa, a case arising from a Mexican family’s efforts to hold a U.S. Border Patrol agent liable for the shooting death of their son, who was on the Mexican side of the border, could “have a drastic impact on victims
On the first Monday in October, the justices will hear argument in Peter v. NantKwest. Although this is not one of the most controversial cases on the court’s docket this fall, we can trust that the justices’ summer break will leave them sufficiently rested to give it the attention it deserves.
This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court chats with Tony Mauro, who recently retired after nearly four decades covering the Supreme Court, about what he saw on the Supreme Court beat – from the justices’ deciding a presidential election to contentious confirmation hearings – and what he was hoping to see – from better recruitment of minority law clerks to cameras in the courtroom.
For over a century, a criminal defendant in Louisiana (except in capital cases) could be convicted without a unanimous verdict from the jury. In 2018, the state’s voters repealed the non-unanimity rule, leaving Oregon as the only state in the nation that does not require a unanimous verdict.
On Friday, the Supreme Court released orders from its October 1 conference. The justices granted five cases for a total of three hours of oral argument. The October 2019 term will begin on Monday, October 7. The calendar for the October sitting is available on the court’s website.
Next week the justices will return to the bench for the first time since the end of June. The new term is already full of interesting cases, including the very first one on Monday, October 7: Kahler v. Kansas, in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the Constitution allows a state to abolish the insanity defense.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutionality of Ohio’s elevated burden of proof for certain criminal defendants seeking a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; whether the enforcement of generally applicable
Briefly: For The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that a “bundle of hot-button controversies await the nine” justices “when the Supreme Court returns to work on October 7th,” following “four tumultuous years that saw one death, a retirement, three pitched Senate confirmation battles, two new
A subcommittee of the U. S. House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing yesterday on public access to the federal courts – the second hearing on ethics, accountability and transparency in a 21st-century federal judiciary.
At Lambda Legal, Gregory Nevins details the litigation strategy that led to three upcoming Supreme Court cases that ask whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.