Friday round-up

By on May 15, 2015 at 10:43 am

Next Term’s Spokeo v. Robins, in which the Court will consider whether Congress can confer standing on a plaintiff who has not suffered any concrete injury by authorizing a private right of action for a violation of a federal statute, has prompted two different commentators to weigh in. In an op-ed for The New York Times, William Baude suggests that the Court’s decision to grant review in the case “may have the surprising effect of causing the court to postpone its ruling in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, a major case about separation of powers and foreign affairs that the court is expected to decide any day now.” And at the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen suggests that, even if the Court were to rule that Congress cannot confer standing, Robins “may still have recourse against Spokeo” in state court, where “standing rules tend to be more permissive.” Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on May 14, 2015 at 10:16 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-740
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issue: Whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search warrant that is itself the fruit of the poisonous tree.

 
Share:

At its Conference on May 14, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant’s untainted assets under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, retaliation for speech and association protected by the First Amendment, and the constitutionality of a San Francisco gun ordinance.

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.

Continue reading »

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on May 14, 2015 at 9:12 am

On Monday night the Shakespeare Theater hosted its annual mock trial, based on the musical Man of La Mancha.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as the Chief Justice for the event, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.  Kali Borkoski covered the event for this blog, with Tony Mauro doing the same for the Blog of Legal Times (subscription or registration required). Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on May 13, 2015 at 10:15 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-1145

Issue: Whether, under Holland v. Florida, a court may impose a per se rule precluding the application of equitable tolling to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition where a petitioner relies to his detriment on binding circuit precedent that would have rendered his claim futile.

On Monday, the Shakespeare Theatre Company hosted The Trial of Don Quixote, a mock trial inspired by the musical Man of La Mancha, at the Sidney Harman Hall in Washington, D.C. Abbe Lowell, the chair of the theater’s Bard Association, opened the evening with a nod to politics, telling the audience that, as presidential candidates begin to have dreams and delusions, Man of La Mancha became the obvious choice for this year’s mock trial.

(Photo by Kevin Allen)

(Photo by Kevin Allen)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the Supreme Court of La Mancha, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The question before the court was whether the Family Court of La Mancha had erred in its determination that knight errant Alonso Quixana — also known as Don Quixote — was mentally incompetent and required a guardian. And if the Family Court correctly determined that Alonso was not fully competent to manage his affairs, should it have rejected his niece Antonia’s petition for guardianship as being motivated by fraud and self-interest and instead have appointed Alonso’s loyal friend, Sancho Panza, to be his guardian? Continue reading »

 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on May 13, 2015 at 9:43 am

Briefly:

  • At the Appellate Practice Blog of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, Lisa Soronen discusses Green v. Donohoe, in which the Court recently granted cert. to determine when the filing period for a constructive discharge begins to run; she suggests that the Court probably granted review “to resolve a circuit split that has been brewing for the last 25 years.”
  • At The Legal Intelligencer, Charles Kelbley discusses the March 25 oral arguments in the Clean Air Act cases and concludes that, “based on what the justices said and the questions they asked during oral argument, there may be four votes for the challengers and four for the EPA, with Kennedy, as is often the case, holding the swing vote for one of the two sides.”
  • At BuzzFeed, Chris McDaniel reports that the “Oklahoma attorney general’s office misrepresented the facts behind a key argument about the availability of certain execution drugs in its filings at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
  • In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Edward Blum urges the Court to grant review in a“constitutional challenge to how Texas created its state Senate districts” that “could reestablish electoral fairness in dozens of voting districts — not just in Texas but throughout the country.”

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) news article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on May 12, 2015 at 10:35 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-654

Issue: Whether the conspiracy offense proscribed in the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), requires proof that a defendant committed an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

Tuesday round-up

By on May 12, 2015 at 9:58 am

Briefly:

  • In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle reports that the Court’s recent decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission “is forcing state bars to re-examine their operations to avoid potentially huge antitrust liability.”
  • Charles Babington of the Associated Press reports on recent comments by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, who suggested thatthe United States should rethink the notion that a president must enforce laws the Supreme Court declares constitutional.”

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) news article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on May 11, 2015 at 10:27 pm

The petition of the day is:

14-1095

Issue: (1) Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case to be measured against the elements described in the jury instructions where those instructions, without objection, require the government to prove additional or more stringent elements than do the statute and indictment; and (2) whether a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at or before trial is reviewable on appeal.

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards