A Quite Unusual 5-4 Split on the Supreme Court
Three opinions, no blockbusters, but an odd (and unprecedented?) 5-4 split - and interesting order on Congressional subpoenas.
Three opinions, no blockbusters, but an odd (and unprecedented?) 5-4 split - and interesting order on Congressional subpoenas.
Most of the commentary on the Supreme Court's rejection of last minute judicial intervention glossed over the underlying constitutional question.
The Court could have, and probably should have, pushed these cases over to the 2020-21 Term
Environmental groups were worried the Court would curtail CWA jurisdiction in Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. It didn't.
I have a contribution (coauthored with Shelley Ross Saxer) in this symposium on last year's important Supreme Court takings decision.
A 50-year-old precedent was tossed, which caused three justices to dissent.
All three of today's Supreme Court decisions featured unusual alignments among the justices.
The president contemplates a sweeping exercise of executive authority.
A federal judge defended religious freedom by blocking a misguided ban on drive-in Easter services.
"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," they say.
Will the Supreme Court question the underpinnings of the modern administrative state?
“Can an independent federal agency that is supposed to regulate commodity futures assert power over every single purchase or sale of a commodity?”
Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather offers a helpful explainer laying out the issues in the SCOTUS and SCOWIS decisions on the Wisconsin primary elections.
The justice filed a lone dissent in Kansas v. Glover.
“The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.”
An innocent man was beaten up by a local police detective and an FBI agent. No one wants to take responsibility.
"These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Emergency restrictions should always be lifted as soon as the crisis has sufficiently abated.
Kansas “will not wholly exonerate a defendant on the ground that his illness prevented him from recognizing his criminal act as morally wrong.”
Religious liberty, public health, and the police powers of the states
The coronavirus upends business as usual at SCOTUS.
Weighing the state and local response to COVID-19
Like many federal appellate courts, the Supreme Court is putting arguments on hold.
Fatal police shootings and the Fourth Amendment
The Supreme Court weighs abortion regulation in June Medical Services v. Russo.
Mississippi has a reputation for being one of the most obese states in the nation, as well as having one of America's highest incarceration rates. Neither will be improved by treating unlicensed dieticians like serious criminals.
The Senate minority leader threatened two justices by name, and then he lied about it.
My take on today's decision to consider the Obamacare severability case.
A high-profile gun case actually presents meaty questions of administrative law
“Why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?”
Today's cert grant is based on the importance of the case, not the quality of the arguments
The legal battle over immigration, federalism, and executive power heats up.
If the Court is going to abolish the 20th century remedies, can we at least have the 19th century remedies back?
The justices heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
"A cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications."
The Supreme Court is about to tackle the issue.
Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns unless they were traveling to or from a shooting range.
What’s at stake in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
The Institute for Justice calls on the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
The Supreme Court will decide whether three Muslims who refused to be informants can sue for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
What’s at stake in Torres v. Madrid
It may be better only in so far as it is much more likely to get invalidated by the courts.
It's time to stop trying to cartelize the market for law clerks
What’s at stake in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
What’s at stake in Michigan v. Wood
A major constitutional clash is unfolding at SCOTUS.