Petition of the day

By on Jul 18, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:


Issue: Whether, where purchasers allege that a manufacturer misrepresented a drug’s safety to prescribing doctors to increase sales, the presence of the doctors breaks the causal chain—for purposes of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act causation—between the misrepresentations and the purchasers’ economic injuries.

Twenty-five days ago, the eight Justices of the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order which indicated that they were deadlocked four to four on the validity of the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy, which would allow undocumented immigrants who are the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply to remain in the country without fear of deportation and work here legally.  Because two lower courts had blocked the administration from implementing the policy before it could go into effect, it looked like the ruling could be the end of the administration’s immediate attempt to revive the policy prior to the end of all the litigation.  But today the Obama administration asked the Court to grant rehearing to review the case again (which would require the votes of five Justices), when it has all nine Justices – even if it isn’t clear when that will be.  Continue reading »

Monday round-up

By on Jul 18, 2016 at 10:49 am

Coverage relating to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and her later comments indicating that her remarks were “ill-advised,” comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, who interviewed Ginsburg; commentary comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice suggests that the American Civil Liberties Union has taken “the debate about Donald Trump in the direction that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might have been able to if she had gone beyond off-hand comments to a succession of three reporters”; Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, who argues that Ginsburg’s remarks “were bad for the Supreme Court and, consequently, for the country”; and Fred Hiatt, who in another op-ed for The Washington Post contends that “it’s worth asking” what Ginsburg’s “brief bout of Trump Derangement Syndrome says about our system’s ability to withstand four years of a Trump presidency.”

Commentary on the announcement by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady that he will not seek relief from the Supreme Court in the “Deflategate” controversy comes from Matt Bonesteel in The Washington Post and Nathaniel Grow at the Sports Law Blog. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up

Petitions of the day

By on Jul 15, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petitions of the day are:


Issue: (1) Whether, under Brady v. Maryland, courts may consider information that arises after trial in determining the materiality of suppressed evidence; and (2) whether, in a case where no physical evidence inculpated petitioners, the prosecution’s suppression of information that included the identification of a plausible alternative perpetrator violated petitioners’ due process rights under Brady.


Issue: Whether, consistent with this Court’s Brady v. Maryland jurisprudence, a court may require a defendant to demonstrate that suppressed evidence “would have led the jury to doubt virtually everything” about the government’s case in order to establish that the evidence is material.

Friday round-up

By on Jul 15, 2016 at 9:55 am

Yesterday Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a statement, through the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, in which she indicated that her remarks criticizing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were “ill-advised.”  I covered the statement for this blog, with other coverage coming from Pete Williams and Halimah Abdullah of NBC News, Michael Shear of The New York Times, Jessica Taylor and Meg Anderson of NPR, Priscilla Alvarez of The Atlantic, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, and Harper Neidig of The Hill.  In The Guardian, Megan Carpentier surveys legal experts about the possible effect of Ginsburg’s remarks on her legacy. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court released the calendar for its October 2016 sitting.  The calendar is noteworthy in two respects.  First, the Justices will hear oral arguments on only three of the six weekdays of the sitting, because a federal holiday – Columbus Day (October 10) – and two Jewish high holidays — Rosh Hashanah (October 3) and Yom Kippur (October 12) – fall during the sitting.  On October 3, the Justices will take the bench but will not hear oral arguments, although they may (for example) admit new lawyers to the Court’s bar.  Second, on two of the three oral argument days, the Justices will also hear oral arguments in the afternoon – a relatively rare occurrence that is likely intended to compensate for the days on which oral arguments are not scheduled.    Continue reading »

Posted in Everything Else

UPDATED:  On Thursday, July 14, Chief Justice John Roberts requested a response from attorneys for G.G. to the school board’s stay application.  The response is due by 4 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, July 27.  


Warning of “severe disruption,” including the possibility that some parents might withdraw their children from school if a federal district court’s order mandating that a transgender student who identifies as a boy be allowed to use the boys’ restroom takes effect, a Virginia school board today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put both the district court’s order and an earlier ruling by a federal appeals court on hold.  Promising to file a petition for review by August 29, the Gloucester County School Board urged the Court to “restore the status quo” until the Court can weigh in on the case.  Continue reading »

Ginsburg walks back comments on Trump

By on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:34 am

In a series of recent interviews with the Associated Press, The New York Times, and CNN, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had harsh words for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump – calling him a “faker” and suggesting that she didn’t “even want to contemplate” the impact that a Trump presidency would have on the Supreme Court and the country.  Trump shot back with a call for Ginsburg to resign; the Justice’s comments were also widely criticized by editorial boards and pundits across the ideological spectrum.

Today Ginsburg weighed in again, perhaps seeking to quell the controversy.  In a statement released by the Court’s Public Information Office, Ginsburg described her “recent remarks in response to press inquiries” as “ill-advised” and added that she “regret[s] making them.”  “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office,” she continued, and she indicated that “[i]n the future I will be more circumspect.”


Event announcement

By on Jul 14, 2016 at 9:15 am

UC Irvine School of Law will host its sixth annual Supreme Court Term review today at 12 p.m. Pacific. Speakers will include Howard Bashman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Kaaryn Gustafson, Dahlia Lithwick, and Robert Barnes; Rick Hasen will serve as moderator. The event will be live-streamed.


Thursday round-up

By on Jul 14, 2016 at 8:13 am

Yesterday a Virginia school board asked the Supreme Court to put on hold a lower-court ruling requiring it to allow a transgender student who identifies as a boy to use the boys’ restroom.  I covered the ruling for this blog, with other coverage coming from Lyle Denniston at Constitution Daily, Louis Llovio of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Alana Durkin Richer of the Associated Press, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters, and Moriah Balingit of The Washington Post.   Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot