This morning at 10 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live-blogging at 9:45 here. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., which Ronald Mann previewed for this blog.
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether the filed rate doctrine and Supremacy Clause permit a state public service commission to “trap” federally approved costs with a utility by recognizing the prudency of obtaining electric power from a plant in another state, but then barring the utility from recovering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-approved transmission costs of importing that power.
As quick off the mark as usual, Justice Scalia’s unanimous opinion for the Court in Law v. Siegel was the Court’s first opinion from the January argument calendar and his fourth opinion (more than any other Justice) of the 2013 Term.
The more questions the Supreme Court Justices asked on Tuesday about the facts in a high-speed police chase case, the more they showed a willingness — maybe even an eagerness — to rule for the police. But the more they looked for a legal principle, the more they were talking themselves out of ruling at all. Those odd cross-currents marked the argument in the case of Plumhoff v. Rickard.
The lone argument on Wednesday, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, presents the kind of question the Justices don’t often consider: “Whether the Court should overrule or substantially limit the holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).” But the Justices granted the petition to decide that question, and so the focus of argument on Wednesday will be an unusual one: not whether the Court’s existing precedent suggest a decision one way or the other, but whether the Court should jettison the existing precedent entirely.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
Yesterday, when most of the federal government was shut down, the Justices braved the snow and ice to get to One First Street, N.E., where the morning began with orders from their February 28 Conference. In the wake of last week’s release of unauthorized videos taken while the Court was in session, members of the gallery (including reporters) found themselves subject to heightened screening measures before entering the Courtroom; Mark Walsh reports on those changes for this blog.
On the order list, the Court granted certiorari in five cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one more. Lyle Denniston covered Monday’s orders for this blog. Coverage of, and commentary on, yesterday’s grant in Holt v. Hobbs, in which an inmate is challenging a prison’s ban on beards, comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, while Kent Scheidegger also discusses the grant at Crime and Consequences. Writing for Education Week’s School Law blog, Mark Walsh covered the Court’s denial of certiorari in three cases: one involves a German family that is seeking asylum here because it says it will be persecuted in Germany for home-schooling; at issue in the other cases is whether school districts in California must provide transcription services to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Continue reading »
This morning at 10 a.m. we expect one or opinions in argued cases. We will begin live-blogging at 9:45 here. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Plumhoff v. Rickard, which Lyle Denniston previewed for this blog.
At its Conference on March 7, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as regulation of lewd expression in the public schools, whether Congress may confer standing to sue when the plaintiff suffers no concrete injury, employees’ personal liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and unwritten promises to defendants in exchange for guilty pleas.
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.