|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|09-1233||E.D. Cal.||Nov 30, 2010||May 23, 2011||5-4||Kennedy||OT 2010|
Disclosure: Akin Gump represents California State Republican Legislator Intervenors, et al. in this case.
Holding: 1)The court below did not err in concluding that overcrowding in California prisons was the primary cause of the continuing violations of prisoners constitutional rights to adequate health care. 2) The evidence supported the conclusion of the three-judge panel that a population limit was necessary to remedy the overcrowding problem. 3) The relief ordered by the three-judge court the population limit was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.
Plain English Holding: A federal court lawfully ordered California to reduce its prison population to remedy long-standing constitutional violations arising from prison overpopulation.
Judgment: United States District Courts for the Eastern District and the Northern District of California affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on May 23, 2011. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito also wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by the Chief Justice.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!