Friday round-up

By on Aug 5, 2016 at 6:44 am

At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser discusses the “courtesy” vote cast by Justice Stephen Breyer on Wednesday, leading to an order blocking a federal district court’s ruling that would have required a Virginia school board to allow a transgender student who identifies as a boy to use the boys’ restroom while the dispute is being litigated.  He suggests that, “should Breyer decide to cast similar courtesy votes in any voting rights case, he is likely to permanently strip voters of their ability to participate in the upcoming election. And, if an election is close, he could potentially change its outcome as well.”  Daniel Hensel reports on the order at Article 8.

Briefly:

  • In The New York Times, Peter Henning reports on Salman v. United States, slated for oral argument in October, in which the Court will “decide what type of benefit must be provided to prove a quid pro quo arrangement.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) 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:

Thursday round-up

By on Aug 4, 2016 at 5:57 am

Yesterday the Court blocked a federal district court order that would have required a Virginia school board to allow a transgender student who identifies as a boy to use the boys’ bathroom until the dispute can be litigated on the merits.  I covered the dispute for my own blog, with other coverage coming from Mark Walsh at Education Week, Caitlin Emma and Josh Gerstein at Politico, Moriah Balingit of The Washington Post, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Petition of the day

By on Aug 3, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-32

Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration by requiring a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before the attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to an arbitration agreement.

The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the dispute between a Virginia school board and a transgender student who identifies as a boy.  In June, a federal district court in Virginia ordered the Gloucester County School Board to allow “G.G.” to use the boys’ bathroom at Gloucester High School until the case can be fully litigated.  A federal appeals court turned down the school board’s request to halt the district court’s order, so the school board went to the Supreme Court, where it found more success:  today the Court blocked the district court’s order while the school board seeks Supreme Court review of the dispute.  Today’s action means that “G.G.” will not be able to use the boys’ bathroom when school resumes on September 6; it also suggests that four Justices – the number needed to review a case on the merits – could be willing to take the case on, possibly as soon as this fall.  Continue reading »

Wednesday round-up

By on Aug 3, 2016 at 8:21 am

Yesterday, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in January invalidating Florida’s death penalty scheme, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down that state’s death penalty law.  Coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Pete Williams and the Associated Press at NBC News, and Erik Eckholm of The New York Times, while Kent Scheidegger has commentary on the ruling for Crime and Consequences. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Tuesday round-up

By on Aug 2, 2016 at 5:46 am

Briefly:

  • At FiveThirtyEight, Oliver Roeder predicts that “the median justice during Trump’s or Clinton’s presidency could become one of the most extreme in almost a century.”
  • At Philly.com, Samantha Melamed reports that, in Pennsylvania, four “juvenile lifers” were “given new sentences as a consequence of Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court decision this January that made retroactive the court’s ban on automatic life-without-parole sentences for juveniles.”
  • At The American Prospect, Scott Lemieux lists what he characterizes as the “five worst Roberts Court rulings.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) 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 Aug 1, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

16-54

Issue: Whether a conviction under one of the seven state statutes criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a twenty-one-year-old and someone almost eighteen constitutes an “aggravated felony” of “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act – and therefore constitutes grounds for mandatory removal.

In early August, the American Bar Association will hold its annual meeting, which will include four different panels related to the Supreme Court. All panels will take place at the Moscone Center unless otherwise indicated; all times are Pacific. Three panels are scheduled for August 5 at 2 p.m.:

  • The Criminal Justice Section will review both the criminal law cases that were at the Court last Term and those that will be there in the upcoming Term. Speakers will include California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, Dennis Riordan, and Brian Stretch; this blog’s Rory Little will serve as moderator.
  • The Division for Public Education will host a panel on both last Term and the upcoming Term. Speakers will include Nicole Austin-Hillery, Rachel Moran, Neal Katyal, and this blog’s Steve Wermiel; Adam Liptak will serve as moderator.
  • The Section of Litigation will host a panel on the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia and the influence of his death on the Court. Speakers will include Vikram Amar and Pamela Karlan; John Barkett will serve as moderator. This event will take place at the Palace Hotel.

On August 6 at 2 p.m., the Section of Litigation will host a panel on the 2016 election, Supreme Court nominations, and the current vacancy on the Court. Speakers include Reginald Brown, Pamela Karlan, and Edward Whelan; Carrie Johnson will serve as moderator.

 

 
Share:

Monday round-up

By on Aug 1, 2016 at 5:51 am

Briefly:

  • The Southeastern Legal Foundation discusses the amicus brief that it filed urging the Justices “to reverse the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) backward interpretation of its own rule which allows pilots to post pre-planned flights on old-fashioned bulletin boards but not virtual ones.”
  • Giles Edwards of BBC News interviews Abigail Fisher, who challenged the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process.
  • At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports on what a President Hillary Clinton’s short list for Supreme Court nominations might look like.
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman reviews the cert. petitions filed in 2016 by some leading appellate law firms.
  • In USA Today, Richard Wolf reports on signs that the Court’s “defense of religious freedom may be on the decline.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) 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 Jul 29, 2016 at 11:23 pm

The petition of the day is:

15-1537

Issue: (1) Whether, when the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs an arbitration, the FAA’s judicial review standards apply in state court and preempt application of different state-law judicial-review standards; and (2) whether, when arbitrators have jurisdiction to resolve a contract dispute, the FAA prohibits a court from holding that they “exceeded their powers” based on the court’s conclusion that their contract interpretation is “plainly” and “irrationally” incorrect on the merits.

More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards