The Justices heard arguments in six cases this week: a wildly complicated case that blends statutory interpretation with federal immigration law; a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case about traffic stops; two maritime cases, one of which actually concerns admiralty law while the other stems from the discovery of Blackbeard’s pirate ship (yes, you could say Blackbeard’s ship charted a course to the U.S. Supreme Court); a showstopper of an environmental law case; and an ERISA statutory interpretation case that, I admit, nearly put me to sleep. As an added bonus, the Court added a copyright case to its docket and denied a petition for a stay of execution. All in a week’s work for the Nine! Here’s your brief for the week of November 4.
Another very quiet week for the Justices: no decisions, no oral arguments, a few miscellaneous orders, and just one cert grant in a securities-law case. But have no fear—with the November sitting beginning next week, the Supreme (Court) machine will soon awaken from its quiet idle and roar into its normal, high gear. For now, here’s a short rundown of the little drummings of action this week at 1 First St. NE.
After the furor of the first two weeks of the Court’s term, the week of October 21 was markedly more placid. The Justices did not hear oral argument in any merits cases and predictably did not issue any decisions yet in argued cases. We do have the first opinion of the term, but it’s only an opinion relating to one of the Court’s orders on Monday. On a separate note, while the Justices didn’t garner many headlines in the courtroom, Justice Ginsburg grabbed the spotlight on Wednesday night for being awarded a very prestigious prize by the Berggruen Institute. So after a quiet week for the Justices (or for eight of them, at least), here’s your quick brief for the week of October 21.
The Justices met for their second full week of the term. The Court added four cases to its merits docket, heard oral arguments in another four cases, and gave us all a couple interesting nuggets in its orders lists (including a dismissal of a case that might already win the award for the “Strangest Cert Petition of the Term”). For your weekly recap of the action at 1 First St. NE, here’s your brief for the week of October 14.
Congratulations: 1 week of the Court’s term is down, three dozen (or more) to go. Though its first full day in session was relatively quiet, Tuesday landed with a bang. Garnering headlines throughout the nation were oral arguments in three cases concerning LGBTQ+ and transgender rights in the workplace. Transcripts and full audio recordings of these cases (as well as the three heard on Monday) are linked here. After a three-month summer sabbatical, your weekly briefings on the action at the U.S. Supreme Court are back. Here’s your brief for the week of October 7—the first week of the Court’s O.T. 2019.
The U.S. Supreme Court will be back in session in only TWO days. With cases concerning LGBTQ+ and transgender rights, gun control, immigration law, religious liberty, environmental regulations, insanity defenses, and other topics, the Court’s term was already shaping up to be a noteworthy one. But just yesterday, the Justices added to their docket a pair of cases involving a Louisiana abortion law, a move that will put the Court ever more in the limelight in a term that stretches into an election year. With less than 48 hours until the Nine don their black robes and take their seats at the bench, here’s a brief about what the Court did this week and what is sure to come. Get ready, folks: O.T. 2019 is just about underway!
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction against the Trump Administration, which had barred it from using nearly $2.5 billion in interdepartmental transfer funds for construction of the border wall. Tonight was Part II. The high court lifted another injunction that had been issued against the Administration, this one concerning the latest asylum rule promulgated in July. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. With less than a month until the Court is back in session, it seems clear the Justices are not shy of acting on their summer shadow docket. Here’s a summary of the case, the Court’s order, and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.
Wednesday night, the Supreme Court denied a Texas death row inmate’s petition for a stay of execution. There were no noted dissents, but Justice Sotomayor did write a two-page opinion respecting the Court’s decision. Sotomayor shed light on a possible discrepancy between the Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Crosby in 2005 and subsequent practices by some of the nation’s federal appeals courts. Here’s a quick brief of the case and Justice Sotomayor’s opinion.
Editor’s Note: Following this post’s publication Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a press release stating that Justice Ginsburg has completed a three-work course of radiation therapy to treat a tumor on her pancreas. The tumor was found on July 31 after routine blood tests, and a biopsy confirmed it was a malignant, but localized growth. The release noted that Ginsburg “tolerated treatment well,” that there is “no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” and that she needs “no further treatment . . . at this time.”
We are just past the halfway point in the Court’s summer recess. Late last night, the Supreme Court denied a Florida inmate’s petition for a stay of execution. While there were no noted dissents, Justice Sotomayor penned a brief opinion respecting the denial. Here’s a quick brief about the case to get you up to speed.
In 1989, Ann Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging that Price Waterhouse had denied her the chance of becoming a partner at the firm because she was a woman. Her case traveled all the way to the Supreme Court, where a plurality held that, given a set of both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory factors, an employer does not violate Title VII if it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same employment decision even absent the discriminatory factor. In Bostock v. Clayton County (the case next term for which I will write my own opinion), the employees alleging discrimination make a litany of citations to Hopkins’ case in their briefs—especially its discussion of sex stereotyping under Title VII. Consequently, I take a look at the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and assess subsequent legal developments and its relevancy today.