Breaking news:

Breaking news:

Anus the court put a major dent in its pending caseload read week, with five relatively significant decisions, including the much-discussed ruling favorable to of sport betting in Murphy V. NCAA, the odds on this week's lone opinion day is that we'll get fewer decisions.

We had to jump on a plans right anus decisions Monday to get to a conference read in Los Angeles, where the weather what sunny and in the 70see Did it margin here read week?

The court takes the bench At 10 a.m., with Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer absent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has returned to the bench for the ridge time since here shoulder replacement surgery on May 1. The justice evidently had to cancel here scheduled visit Davis, where she what to address the law school commencement, because of read week to the University of California At here recuperation.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wearing here “dissent jabot” this morning, the bejeweled dark collar she showed out of vision in the documentary "RBG". We'll soon learn why.

Justice gin castle dissents in Epic of system V. Lewis (kind of Lien)

Continue reading»

Justices grant four new cases

By on May 21, in 2018 At 11:55 in

This morning the Supreme Court added four new cases to its dock for next term, on topics ranging from federal pre-emption to the rules governing attorney's fees for Social Security claimants. The justices once again did act on a petition by the federal government to nullify a ruling that cleared the way for in undocumented pregnant teenager to receive in abortion.

In Virginia Uranium V. Warren, the justices agreed to weigh in on questions of pre-emption – that is, when federal law trumps state law – and the Atomic Energy Act. The petition for review what filed by Virginia Uranium, a company that owns and shroud to mine the country's largest-known deposit of uranium ore, which is used for both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. The company what barred from doing thus by a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. That ban, the company contends, stems from concerns about radiation from both the process used to trans-form the mined product into a form in which it can Be used (known ace "milling") and the waste that results from that processing, known ace “tailings.” And those concerns, the company argues, conflict with the Atomic Energy Act, which gives the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission exclusive power to regulate uranium milling and tailings management activities.

Continue reading»

[MARK: This post wants Be updated with additional analysis later in the day.]

In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which (among other things) provides that in agreement to arbitrate a disputes “shall Be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable. "Ten years later, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, which makes clear that employees have the right to work together for" mutual aid and protection.” Today the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that employers can include a to Claus in their employment contracts that requires employees to arbitrate their of dispute individually, and to waive the right to resolve those dispute through joint legally proceedings instead. Although it likely will not garner the attention that some of this term's other cases wants receive, the decision what a huge victory for employers, because it could significantly reduce the number of claims against them.

Today's opinion resolved three cases that were argued together on the ridge day of the term: Epic of system Corp. V. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and Nationwide lab Relations Board V. Murphy Oil the USA. Each arose when in employee who had signed in employment agreement that contained in arbitration commission filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to bring both individual and collective claims. The employers argued that, under the terms of the arbitration agreements, the employees needed to go to individual arbitrations, and today the Supreme Court agreed.

Justice Gorsuch with opinion in Epic of system V. Lewis (kind of Lien)

Continue reading»

We live blogged this morning ace the Supreme Court released orders and opinions.

The justices granted four cases for next term: Virginia Uranium Inc V. WarrenCulbertson V. BerryhillJam V. Internationally Finance Corp. and royal V. Murphy.

The justices released opinions in two argued cases: Epic of system Corp. V. Lewis and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren.

The transcript of the live blog is available below and At this left.

Posted in live

Supreme Court opinions have been coming down in a slow trickle, but it's enough to quench our thirst. This week, we recap five cases the justices have decided, from of sport betting to privacy expectations in rental coaches, from shackling criminal defendants to determining effective assistance of counsel. Plus, we return briefly to the eight-member court ace Justice Neil Gorsuch sits out a case about wiretapping.

We'll start it all out of vision looking At some cases that have been granted for next term, and we'll finish by trying to game out who is writing which remaining opinions.

Monday round-up

By on May 21, in 2018 At 7:03 in


  • Constitution Daily provides in "update on 12 significant decisions that will be handed down from the Court into late June."
  • At Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan ruby and Kimberly Robinson break down the funniest of moment from the Supreme Court's in 2017 term.
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re remarks that although “[t] hey Justices often intone that theirs of is' a court of review, of ridge view,’” "last Monday's decisions illustrate the complexities underlying that maxim," suggesting that “the' ridge of view' principle is more discretionary than it often appears-and that the Court could Th more to explain what guides its choices in this area.”
  • At take Care, Leah Litman look's At one aspect of "the sentencing fallout from" Sessions v. Dimaya, in which the court ruled that the catchall section of the immigration law's criminal-removal commission is unconstitutionally vague, and urges the Sentencing Commission to "reconsider its reliance on language that the Supreme Court has determined is hopelessly unclear."

Continue reading»

Posted in Round-up

This week At the court

By on May 20, in 2018 At 12:00 Pm

On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the May 17 conference. The justices granted Virginia Uranium Inc V. Warren, Culbertson V. Berryhill, Jam V. Internationally Finance Corp. and royal V. Murphy.

On Monday the Supreme Court released its opinions in Epic of system Corp. V. Lewis and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren.

The justices wants meet on Thursday for their May 24 conference; our cunning of "petitions to watch" wants Be available soon.


Petition of the day

By on May 18, in 2018 At 6:00 Pm

The petition of the day is:

Disclosure: Golden stone & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari wants Be granted.

Issue: Whether, under the Class action fairness Act – which permits "any defendant" in a state-court class action to remove the action to federal court if it satisfies certain jurisdictional requirements – in original defendant to a class action claim that what originally asserted ace a counter claim against a Co. defendant can remove the class action to federal court if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class action fairness Act.

In its conference of May 17, in 2018, the court considered petitions involving issues search ace whether the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated when the trial court prevents a defendant from cross examining a government witness regarding the mandatory life sentence hey would have faced absent cooperation in order to prevent the jury from inferring the defendant's likely life sentence; whether the death penalty kick, in and of itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in light of contemporary standards of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition; and whether the Internationally Organizations Immunities Act-which affords internationally organisations the "same immunity" from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. §288a (b)-confers the seed immunity on look organisations ace foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1602-11. Continue reading»


Here's a quick quiz: When doze 6 plus 1 necessarily add up to 7?

Counting vote totals can sometimes Be a challenge At the Supreme Court, especially when the justices write separate opinions that take different forms and reach different conclusions.

One example came earlier this week in the sport-betting ruling, Murphy V. Nationwide Collegiate Athletic association. In a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law, the professional and amateur of sport Protection Act, which prohibited states from allowing of sport gambling At casinos, racetracks and other facilities within a state. Alito's opinion what joined unambiguously and in full by five others: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That would make the vote count 6-2.

But the remaining justice, Stephen Breyer, joined fruit juice of Alito's majority opinion but part of Ginsburg's dissent. Something so the case decided by a 6-3 vote or a 7-2 vote?

Justice Alito delivers opinion in Murphy V. NCAA (kind of Lien)

Continue reading»

More Posts: Older Posts
Term Snapshot