|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|08-1175||Supreme Court of Florida||Feb 23, 2010||7-2||Ginsburg||OT 2009|
Holding: Criminal suspects have a right to have their lawyer present during police questioning, and the police are required to inform suspects of that right as part of their Miranda warning. In this case, police officers told a suspect that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering [any] questions and [y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview. The Court held that even though this warning did not specifically mention the right to have a lawyer present during questioning (as opposed to the right to talk to the lawyer before questioning), the warning nonetheless was constitutional because it conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to have an attorney present.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on February 23, 2010. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Stevens, joined in part by Justice Breyer, wrote in dissent.
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the Supreme Court will hand down one or more opinions in argued cases.
We’ll be live blogging through it at 9:45 with @AHoweBlogger, Mark Walsh, and @jamesromoser.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, March 4 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, March 4, as the court releases opinions from the 2020-21 term. This live ...
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.