The Supreme Court issued its opinion
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly [pdf] today. Although superficially an antitrust case, the Court examined the standard of review under 12(b)(6) and concluded that the old "no set of facts" standard should be officially retired.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on May 21, 2007 -
34 comments
In a
5-4 opinion [pdf], the Supreme Court concluded today that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine the scientific evidence of a link between those gases contained in the exhausts of new cars and trucks and climate change. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Scalia wrote a dissent, joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. ScotusBlog summary
here.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Apr 2, 2007 -
30 comments
SCOTUS strikes down campaign finance restrictions [pdf]. The Supreme Court issued an opinion today in
Randall v. Sorrell, striking down limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending imposed by the state of Vermont. The Court, in a fractured opinion (six separate opinions, including two dissents), concluded that restrictions on both contributions and expenditures ran afoul of the First Amendment.
More from Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog. Expect more from
Rick Hasen later today.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Jun 26, 2006 -
81 comments
David Garrow reviewed
Justice Blackmun's papers,
released to the public in 2005, and
concludes that towards the end of his career, Blackmun's clerks all but signed his opinions. In an
interview, discussing senility and Supreme Court Justices, Garrow argues that there has been "a dramatic increase over the last 35 or 45 years in the amount of the justices’ work that is performed by their law clerks," and recommends a "reduction to two or, even better yet, one clerk" from the four clerks available per Justice now. Garrow also comments on the now-deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist, who suffered from an
addiction to painkillers in the 1980s. Garrow's view is
controversial, though, and Legal Affairs published
several responses in the same issue. Other law professors have weighed in, including
Dan Markel,
Mark Tushnet, and some of the folks at the
Volokh Conspiracy. So how
large is the
impact of law clerks?
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Feb 15, 2006 -
63 comments
The
Oyez Project has placed online mp3s for
all of the arguments from the 2004 term of the United States Supreme Court. The 2004 terms spans all cases argued between October 4, 2004, and April 27, 2005, including
United States v. Booker and United States v. FanFan,
Roper v. Simmons ,
Raich v. Gonzales,
Kelo v. City of New London,
McCreary County v. ACLU, and
Van Orden v. Perry.
[slightly more inside]
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Feb 7, 2006 -
25 comments
The Supreme Court
decided Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood today, vacating the lower court's ruling that the parental notification statute was unconstitional. Instead, the Court instructed the lower court to consider narrower relief. The Court, in an
opinion [pdf] written by Justice O'Connor, held that if enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.
[more inside]
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Jan 18, 2006 -
33 comments
Supreme Court upholds Oregon's assisted suicide law. Justice Kenedy wrote the opinion for the majority, concluding that Ashcroft did not have the authority to sanction doctors under the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. Thomas also wrote a separate dissent. The Washington Post has the
opinions, and you can get the
pdf from the Supreme Court's website.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Jan 17, 2006 -
44 comments
The Supreme Court
ruled today that Michael Newdow did not have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter in challenging the recitation of the pledge in a public school classroom in California.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Jun 14, 2004 -
81 comments
Justice Scalia's recusal in the Pledge case has prompted a serious debate on the judicial role.
Robert Alt has suggested that the Justice's recusal carries an important warning for the Senate in confirming new judges; if the Senate requires the nominees to answer questions about their opinions on potential cases, those nominees would have to recuse themselves if those cases later indeed came before them.
Matthew Franck, on the other hand, suggests "this argument ... permits the requirements of judicial ethics — and even a terribly broad reading of them — to trump the constitutional obligation of senators to inform themselves adequately about the kinds of judges they are being asked to confirm." [more inside]
posted by monju_bosatsu
on Oct 22, 2003 -
11 comments
