Editor's mark:

Editor's mark:

There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday At 10 a.m. We wants begin live blogging At 9:45 a.m.
On Wednesday the court hears oral argument in Rosales-Mireles V. United States. Evan Lee has our preview.
On Wednesday the court hears oral argument in Dahda V. United States. Richard Re has our preview.

Petition of the day

By on Feb., 20, 2018 At 5:58 Pm

The petition of the day is:

17-912

Issue: Whether, when the Supreme Court hero in Graham v. Florida that “[t] hey Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without slogan sentence on a juvenile offender who did commit homicide,” states can bypass that rule by sentencing a juvenile offender who did commit homicide to a term of years sentence under which wants hey in prison, because hey wants Be eligible for slogan until hey is 112 years old.

 
Share:

The court has returned from its nearly four-week midwinter recess, one marked by a number of extracurricular orders, in even bigger number of publicly appearances by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and a smaller number of publicly appearances by other justices.

Presumably, some work has gotten done, because the court has announced the possibility of opinions on Wednesday, which would add to the whopping four merits opinions that have come down thus far.

We ares up in the courtroom for the ridge argument this morning, ace we and many of other reporter ares quietly down in the pressroom dealing with today's generous orders cunning.

But when the justices take the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts has in announcement.

"Before we begin today, I would like to note that last Sunday, February 18, marked the 30th th anniversary of the day our colleague Justice Kennedy took the judicial and constitutional oaths as a new member of this court. …"

Continue reading»

Argument transcripts

By on Feb., 20, 2018 At 3:11 Pm

The transcript in Currier V. Virginia is available on the Supreme Court's website; the transcript in city of Hays V. Steward is available.

Posted in Merits Cases
 
Share:

Ohio V. American Express Co., which is set for argument on February 26, may simply reinforce the burden-shifting approach that has been developed and applied in civil anti-trust cases, or it could announce a particular new approach defining markets and assessing competitive injury in multinational sided platforms and markets.

The case involves two-sided platforms in a moulder, technology-enabled network industry – credit cards. In 2010, the United States and 18 states (Hawaii later dropped out, leaving 17 states) the south four firms that operate credit-card platforms, and that directly or indirectly issue credit cards to cardholders and service merchants who accept cards: American Express Co. and American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. (Amex), visas and MasterCard. The plaintiffs claimed that the anti-steering provisions of the merchant agreements unreasonably restrained competition and violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Visas and MasterCard settled before trial, thus the case proceeded to trial only against Amex.

Continue reading»

This morning the Supreme Court released orders from the justices' private conference read week. The court did act on the federal government's petition for review of a disputes over whether the Trump administration can terminate the progrief known ace "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals," which allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States ace children to apply for protection from deportation. In a relatively rare move, the government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in even before the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 9Th Circuit has ruled on the Trump administration's appeal of a January 9 ruling by a federal judge in California, who blocked the federal government from ending the progrief DACA. Many court watchers believed that if the justices planned to grant the government's request and hear oral argument in the case this term, they would have done read so Friday, shortly anus their conference, to jump start what would Be in expedited briefing schedule. The justices likely wants consider the case again At their conference on Friday, February 23.

Continue reading»

In March, Richard Hasen wants sweetly a series of conversations on B sharp new book, "The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption":

  • With Kate Shaw at Cardozo School of Law in New York, on March 5 At 12 p.m., details here.
  • With Joan Biskupic at the Brennan Center for Justice, so in New York on March 5, At 6:30 p.m., details here.
  • With Sue Bloch and Adam Liptak at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., on March 6 At 12:15 p.m., details here.
  • With Dan Urman at Northeastern University in Boston, on March 15 At 6 p.m., details here.
  • With Adam Winkler at UC Irvine School of Law in Irvine, Calif., on March 20 At 5:30 p.m. SHH, details here.
  • With Erwin Chemerinsky at the Library foundation of Los Angeles, on March 28 At 12:30 p.m. SHH, details here.
 
Share:

[Editor's mark: In earlier version of this post come on on December 18, ace in introduction to this blog's symposium on Janus v. American Federation of State, county, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, ace wave ace At Howe on the Court, where it what originally published.]

Like many employees, Mark Janus what upset about deductions from B sharp paycheck – specifically, the roughly 45$ by month that goes to the local branch of the American Federation of State, county, and Municipal Employees, the union that represents him. But unlike fruit juice employees, Janus – a child-support specialist At the state's Department of Healthcare and Family of service, who doze belong to the union – may Be able to Th something about that deduction. Next week the Supreme Court wants hear oral argument in B sharp challenge to the constitutionality of the fairy. It's a familiar question for eight of the nine justices, who have already heard oral argument on the issue twice. The court did resolve the issue the ridge time; the second time, in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, they deadlocked. This means that the outcome in Janus' case could would hang on the vote of the court's newest justice, Neil Gorsuch.

In 1977, in Abood V. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees like Janus who Th belong to a union can Be required to pay a fairy – often known ace a “fairly share” or "agency" fairy – to cover the union's costs to negotiate a contract that applies to all publicly employees, including those who ares union members. The justices reasoned then that allowing the fees would help to avoid both lab strife and the prospect that nonmembers could Be "free-riders" who benefit from the union's collective bargaining efforts without having to pay for them. But that decision has come under fire in recent years, in a series of cases asking the court to overrule Abood and sweetly that requiring in unwilling employee to pay even this more limited fairy violates the ridge Amendment.

Continue reading»

Tuesday round-up

By on Feb., 20, 2018 At 6:33 in

Today the justices return anus a three-week break to hear oral of argument in two criminal cases. Ridge up is Currier V. Virginia, which asks what of mouthful to a defendant's stands in jeopardy protections when hey consents to sequential trials for multiple, overlapping offences. Lissa Griffin previewed the case for this blog. Amanda Wong and Jared Ham offer a preview At Cornell Law School Legal Information institutes. Counting to 5 (podcast) provides another preview of Currier and, in a second episode, a look ahead At all this week's cases. The George Washington Law Review's On the Docking blog previews all the cases in the February argument sitting.

This morning's second case is city of Hays V. Steward, which asks whether a probable-cause hearing is part of a criminal case within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination to Claus. Rory Little has this blog's preview. Madeline Horn and Conley Wouters preview the case for Cornell.

Continue reading»

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

On February 22 At 12 p.m., the Cato institutes wants host a panel discussion on Minnesota Voters Alliance V. Mansky, a ridge Amendment case that wants Be argued before the Supreme Court on February 28. Panelists include Whom fa, Ginger Anders and Trevor Burrus; Ilya Shapiro wants moderate ones. Hero At of Cato Institute' Hayek Auditorium, is available on the Cato website wants Be Registration and additional information about this event, which.

 
Share:

OT2017 #14: "Justice for Stormy"

By on Feb., 19, 2018 At 7:54 in

The Supreme Court's long break is over and we're here to preview some of the fruit juice interesting cases from the February sitting. We take a deep dive into Janus v. AFSCMELozman V. City of Riviera BeachCurrier V. Virginia and Ohio V. American express train, making our trademark predictions ace to each case. We speculate about who Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw some recent shade At, and we wrap things up with some hotline calls.

More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards