MetaFilter posts tagged with scotus

Good news - it's Supreme Court Week.

IvoShandor — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:02:15 -0800

Beginning Sunday, October 4 it's Supreme Court Week on C-SPAN! If you don't know much about the U.S. Supreme Court this looks like it will be a good opportunity to change that. The week starts off when C-SPAN airs its original documentary "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court" at 9 pm (EST) on Oct. 4. (There is a preview of it in the first link). C-SPAN already spends time covering the Supreme Court and the network is known for its advocacy of cameras in the courts. Later in the week there will be some other good programming including interviews with the justices over the weekend of October 9. The web site already has some video up including a bit on the impact of the newest justice, some words from that new member (and other members) and some great stuff on the SCOTUS building, so make sure to check out the virtual tour. CSPAN has some video at its SCOTUS Week YouTube page as well. C-SPAN likes sponsoring polls too, on September 24 they released (PDF) a Supreme Court poll (PDF), not really a C-SPAN rarity. (PDF) And don't forget, no public money pays for C-SPAN.

Let the games begin

Navelgazer — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:40:43 -0800

Today began Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, with opening remarks from the Senators on the Judiciary Committee, introductions from NY Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and an opening statement from Judge Sotomayor herself. Among the shouted protests from pro-life advocates in the gallery, highlights included Sen. Lindsay Graham's statement about what he thinks the advise-and-consent function of the senate should entail, and Sen. Al Franken's first real moment in the U.S. Congress.

By The Content Of Their Character

Law Talkin' Guy — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:28:48 -0800

Today, on the last day of this year's term, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano, the latest in the Court's line of decisions on Title VII and the role of race in employment decisions. The famous case centers on white firefighters' claims of race discrimination following the town of New Haven's decision to scuttle a promotion exam after white test takers performed disproportionately better than black firefighters. The case has been covered extensively in blogs and the mainstream and local media. In addition to the high-stakes questions at issue in the case itself, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sat on the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that summarily decided the case at the intermediate appellate level.

Obama picks Sotomayer for SCOTUS

XQUZYPHYR — Tue, 26 May 2009 05:59:07 -0800

The New York Times is reporting that President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Justice David Souter's replacement on the Supreme Court. Sotomayer, currently a judge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, will (if confirmed by the Senate) be only the third female and the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog predicted Sotomayer as one of Obama's three most likely candidates back in January.

Souter to retire

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:29:26 -0800

NPR is reporting that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire at the end of the current Court term, pending the approval of a replacement to be appointed by President Obama. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Souter's replacement will presumably maintain the balance of ascribed "left-leaning" to "right-leaning" justices at 4-5, but will increase the number of justices on the bench appointed by a Democratic president to 3. At 69, Souter is in fact the youngest of the so-called "left-leaning" justices currently on the bench.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

Non Prosequitur — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800

The previously-mentioned Summums want to place their own monument in a park which contains the Ten Commandments, making the Supreme Court's heads explode in a a hilariously weird oral argument^[pdf]: "Scalia: I don't know what that means. You keep saying it, and I don't know what it means. [...] Breyer: Suppose that there certain messages that private people had like "eat vitamins"—and then somebody comes along with a totally different content, "ride the roller coaster," and they say this part of the park is designed to get healthy children, not put children at risk." At issue: "Pulling a crystalline, cogent rule out of the murk of the court's First Amendment, public forum, and Establishment Clause doctrine is an act of creation too complicated for mere mortals."

Life and death of a black and white

mrducts — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:47:48 -0800

Texas executes Mexican national who was denied consul visit. Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was born in the border town of Nuevo Laredo, just across the Rio Grande river from Laredo,TX. Medellín moved to the US when he was 3 years of age, and was 18 years of age in June of 1993 when he participated in the gang rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14 and Elizabeth Pena, 16 in Houston,Texas. He was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death. In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Bush Administration must reconsider the case because Medellin was not informed of his right to contact Mexican consulate officials under the Vienna Convention. After the ruling, President Bush asserted authority under the Constitution and the various laws of the United States to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals who had not been advised of their Vienna Convention rights. On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Bush Administration, and ruled that President Bush can't force Texas to reconsider, even if in violation of the International Court of Justice.[Previously]

Heller v. D.C. Decided

Navelgazer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:46:50 -0800

Heller v. District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court's first actual interpretation of the Second Amendment, has just come down. In a 5-4 decision, the Justices ruled D.C.'s comprehensive handgun ban to be unconstitutional. Antonin Scalia writes for the majority.

"The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."

anotherpanacea — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:54:18 -0800

In a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus review:

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.[...] Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

Decision, Summary, Analysis

Live Free Or Die ... Silly?

Wulfgar! — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:30:14 -0800

Members of the Montana legislature (out of session) appear to be attempting to force the Supreme Court's hand in a fairly landmark gun-control case, Heller v. DC. Through an extra-session resolution, they are invoking contract law, by stating that the contract between the Montana people, through our Constitution, and the Federal Government will be ... ? ... if the Heller case is decided 'incorrectly'. What is at issue is one of the SCOTUS' seminal opportunities to rule concerning collective rights versus individual rights for firearm possession. These are the resolution signers. Many are up for re-election this year. Please notice that Rick Jore is the highest ranking elected member of the Constitution party, and Resolution signatory. Brad Johnson, the Secretary of State for Montana (also running for re-election) penned an op-ed in the Washington Times that can only be described as 'confusing' regarding it's intent. Is he claiming that Montana will succeed if not satisfied? Your guess is probably as good as ours. The Montana blogs respond: Intelligent Discontent Left In The West Left In the West

Al Odah v. U.S. and Boumediene v. Bush

ao4047 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:37:15 -0800

Al Odah v. U.S. and Boumediene v. Bush go before SCOTUS Streaming on C-Span today. The Center for Constitutional Rights (great podcast) will argue before the Supreme Court today:

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul, The Center for Constitutional Rights and cooperating counsel filed 11 new habeas petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of over 70 detainees. These cases eventually became the consolidated cases of Al Odah v. United Statesand Boumediene v. Bush, the leading cases determining the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul, the rights of non-citizens to challenge the legality of their detention in an offshore U.S. military base, and the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

"we upheld against proportionality attack a sentence of 40 years' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute nine ounces of marijuana" - Justice Kennedy

daksya — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:04:29 -0800

DrugPolicyCases.com - Yakov Spektor, a New York-based attorney, combed through two decades of US Supreme Court opinions "to discern certain trends in the Court's treatment of various issues" related to the War on Drugs. The collection of opinions are organized by case, author and topic.

Two doors down

Kirth Gerson — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:42:35 -0800

This happens a lot. I mean a lot. All over the place. All these stories are within the last five weeks. Inexcusable, some say. If they break in and cause damage, they have to pay, though, right? Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which says if your address is on the warrant, you get to pay, even if it's a mistake.

Supreme Court Alters 12(b)(6) Standards

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 21 May 2007 15:15:55 -0800

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.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

homunculus — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:25:58 -0800

New Justices, New Rules: How the Supreme Court's Validation of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Affects Women's Constitutional Liberty and Equality. A two-part FindLaw analysis of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Abortions for none, miniature American flags for others

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:57:08 -0800

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal ban on "Partial-Birth Abortion," in a 5-4 decision. The federal ban provides no exceptions for the health of the mother, the reason previous Courts overturned the law. Justice Kennedy argued the law banning the procedure should stay, as opponents "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." In a scathing dissent, Justice Ginsburg alluded to the politics of recent judicial appointments, noting "...the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power."

SCOTUS requires EPA to consider global warming

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:21:23 -0800

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.

Crime doesn't pay.

three blind mice — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:03:54 -0800

Tighter restrictions on damage awards. The two questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court centered on whether or not the highly reprehensible conduct of a defendant is analogous to a crime and can "override" the constitutional requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the plaintiffs harm. The answer is no. (21 page pdf) Held: 1. A punitive damages award based in part on a jury’s desire to punish a defendant for harming nonparties amounts to a taking of property from the defendant without due process. The majority: Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer. Dissenting: Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas.

"President Bush overstepped his authority"

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:23:03 -0800

The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The 5-3 vote (Roberts recused himself) found the "military commissions" illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. More from SCOTUSblog.

Money continues to count as speech.

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:53:21 -0800

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.

... a page of history is worth a volume of logic.

three blind mice — Wed, 17 May 2006 00:01:32 -0800

Injunctions in patent cases not automatic. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (16 page pdf) on Monday in the dispute between eBay and MercExchange. The Court ruled in favor of eBay finding that the lower Appeals Court erred as a matter of law in creating a general rule that “courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” In the concurring opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Scalia and Ginsberg, Roberts citing Court precedent noted that: “[d]iscretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.”

Luttig resigns Fourth Circuit post.

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 10 May 2006 09:28:11 -0800

Luttig Resigns. Judge J. Michael Luttig, long considered a front-runner for a Supreme Court nomination, at least until he was passed over by President Bush, has resigned his position on the Fourth circuit. Luttig will take over as general counsel to Boeing. Read Boeing's press release and Luttig's resignation letter [pdf].

Pontius Pilate — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:39:55 -0800

The Fourth Amendment provides, in part, that "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." The Supreme Court has issued its (yet another) 8-0 opinion, authored by Justice Scalia in the case of United States v. Grubbs, overturning the Ninth Circuit decision. Justice Souter filed a concurring opinion. Grubbs deals with the question of anticipatory warrants, and it is the first time that the Court has addressed the practice. It appears that under this ruling, preemptive warrants can issue without existing probable cause, but merely on the supposition that probable cause will exist in the future.

Some legal scholars had anticipated that at least the more conservative members of the Court would rule against anticipatory warrants. After all, under Blackstone's analysis of the common law rule that contributed to the Fourth Amendment, as noted by Professor Orin Kerr in the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty symposium on the subject, warrants "issue" when they are signed by the judge, and not when the precedent condition occurs. Professor Chris Slobogin disagrees. Kerr has posted a preliminary analysis of the decision on his new blawg. The case has previously been discussed by the smart people over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Vegetal ruling

xowie — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:02:38 -0800

Religious use of ayahuasca ruled lawful in U.S.

Just how important are law clerks?

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:55:52 -0800

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?