WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, April 21

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Resolving Stalemate, Supreme Court Picked Lawyer for Key Pandemic Argument (Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal)
• U.S. Warns Supreme Court Against ‘Windfall’ for Gun Possessors (Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg Law)
• Democrats press Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse in major First Amendment case (John Fritze, USA Today)
• Supreme Court To Tackle a Rare First Amendment Test of Freedom of Association (Tony Mauro, Freedom Forum)
• A.C.L.U. Asks Supreme Court to Let It Seek Secret Surveillance Court Rulings (Charlie Savage, The New York Times)

Case Preview

Court to decide whether an inventor may challenge the validity of the patent on the inventor’s own invention

This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. about whether to abolish the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel. This doctrine, which has fallen under criticism, prohibits an inventor from challenging the validity of the patent on the inventor’s own invention.

Case preview

Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation

Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure: how courts should decide the “costs” that the prevailing party on appeal can recover from the losing party.

Generally speaking, under the “American” rule that prevails in the United States, the prevailing party in litigation must pay its own attorney’s fees. There is, however, a relatively narrow category of administrative “costs” related to litigation that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party. This case involves the costs that are awarded after a successful appeal in federal court. The relevant rule is Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Subsection (a) describes who should pay the costs, explaining in relevant part that “unless the law provides or the court orders otherwise … if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the [losing party].” Subsection (e), in turn, provides that “[t]he following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule,” and then lists four types of costs that are available: costs of preparing the record, costs of preparing the transcript, the fee for filing the notice of appeal, and premiums associated with any bond pending appeal. Posting an appeal bond allows a defendant who loses in the district court to prevent the plaintiff from executing on the judgment while the appeal is pending.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, April 20

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• The Supreme Court’s Increasingly Dim View of the News Media (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court seems likely to back limits on immigrants seeking green cards (Robert Barnes, The Washington Post)
• High court seems ready to send virus funds to Alaska Natives (Jessica Gresko, Associated Press)
• What packing the Supreme Court would really do (Elizabeth Slattery, CNN)
• William Barr, Amy Coney Barrett land book deals (Daniel Lippman, Politico)

Case preview

Pondering the aftermath of a landmark ruling in felon-in-possession cases

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Rehaif v. United States, holding that a conviction under the federal statute penalizing felons in possession of a firearm requires not only the defendant’s knowledge that he possessed a gun, but also that he knew he had the legal status of a convicted felon. The 7-2 decision overruled precedent in every circuit that had considered the issue. Rehaif applies to every federal felon-in-possession conviction not yet final as of the date of that decision. Now the question is whether some or all of those cases need to be sent back for new pleas or trials.

On Tuesday, in the companion cases of Greer v. United States and United States v. Gary, the court will hear argument on how to sort out the affected cases. Greer asks whether jury verdicts are valid if there was no consideration at trial of whether the defendant knew of their felon status; Gary presents a similar question in the context of guilty pleas. Perhaps even more important than the issue of plea versus jury verdict is the question of whether the defendant should have to prove that he likely wouldn’t have been convicted if knowledge of felon status had been an essential element of the offense when he was first charged. Still another critical question is what materials a court may look to in deciding whether the defendant suffered such “prejudice.”