Editor’s Note: In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court remains closed to the public. The building is open for official business only. March and April oral arguments have been postponed, and filing deadlines for petitions have been extended. The Justices are conducting their private conferences remotely. Orders and opinions continue to be issued as scheduled, but the Justices will not take the bench.
This week saw a lighter load for the Justices. They issued one opinion (from Justice Sotomayor) in a case that blends maritime and contract law and released an orders list in which they added one case to next term’s docket. Oral arguments that had been scheduled for this week did not take place, postponed out of caution for the health and safety of the Court’s employees. The Court also announced further changes in light of COVID-19: Oral arguments scheduled for the April sitting have been postponed too. The Court stated it will consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sittings toward the end of June, but only “if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time.” Otherwise, it will be looking at a stunted oral argument calendar and a lengthy layover until O.T. 2020. Here’s your brief for the week of March 30.
Editor’s Note: In light of the novel coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court remains closed to the public. The building is open for official business only. March oral arguments have been postponed indefinitely, and filing deadlines for petitions have been extended. The Justices are conducting their private conferences remotely. Orders and Opinions are still being issued as scheduled, but the Justices will not take the bench.
Another somber week followed the last. What was supposed to be the start of the March oral argument session was instead marked by empty gallery seats and closed doors. In response to the ongoing spread of COVID-19, the Court postponed oral arguments, issued orders and opinions in private, and conducted its own weekly conference over the phone. As for its opinions, the Court released four of them. The opinions came in cases ranging from one that interestingly blends copyright infringement, state sovereign immunity, and a pirate ship (I reviewed the case for the blog here); to Kansas’ adoption of a specific kind of insanity defense (or lack thereof); to a race discrimination claim; to a jurisdictional question in immigration procedure. The Court also released a per curiam decision, and Justice Kavanaugh responded to a denial of cert. Here’s your brief for the week of March 23.
This past Monday, the Supreme Court in Allen v. Cooper struck down a 1990 Congressional statute that had allowed citizens to sue a state in federal court for copyright infringement. The case arose after a marine salvage company discovered the wreck of the Queen Anne’s Revenge, Blackbeard’s famous pirate ship, off the coast of North Carolina and recorded documentary footage of the discovery. When North Carolina published some of the footage in various media, the company sued the state for copyright infringement. The question before the Court was whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to rescind the states’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement claims. Justice Kagan answered “no” with a 7:2 majority, leaving the company marooned. (For lovers of wordplay and maritime puns, this piece is for you.)
Editor’s Note: In light of the novel coronavirus outbreak, the Supreme Court is closed to the public. The building will remain open for official business only. March oral arguments are postponed indefinitely, and filing deadlines for petitions are extended. The Justices are conducting their private conferences remotely. Orders and Opinions are still being issued as scheduled, but the Justices will not take the bench.
Regrettably, the headlines from the Supreme Court this week did not come from opinions or cert grants; they came from the Court’s adjustments in response to the spread of COVID-19. The Justices announced that oral arguments scheduled for the next two weeks are postponed indefinitely. Some of the cases affected include the two over President Trump’s tax records, a blockbuster copyright dispute, and a First Amendment and a Fourth Amendment case. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court building has been closed to the public; the Justices are holding their conferences over the phone; and filing deadlines for attorneys have been extended sizably. In these unprecedented circumstances, here is a recap of the Court’s response this week to the worsening public health crisis.
After two busy weeks, the past seven days were much quieter. The Court is now between its February and March sittings, so no cases were argued this week. The Justices released an orders list on Monday, adding an Eighth Amendment case to next term’s docket. The Court allowed the Trump Administration to temporarily enforce its “remain in Mexico” policy after lower courts had issued preliminary injunctions. Finally, Justice Sotomayor announced that she will recuse herself from one of the two “faithless elector” cases to be argued in April. Here’s your brief for the week of March 9.
This week, the Justices heard oral argument in what is likely the most explosive case of the term: June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, a challenge to a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have “admitting privileges” at area hospitals. Another high-profile case that was argued this week is Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the constitutional challenge to the structure of the CFPB. Next, the Court decided Kansas v. Garcia, a case that asked whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 preempts certain Kansas identity-theft statutes (the answer is no). More nuggets came in the Court’s cert grant in California v. Texas, the latest lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate”; and from a statement by Justice Gorsuch following Monday’s orders list. Here’s another packed summary of the Supreme Court’s proceedings for the week of March 2.
With the February sitting now underway after an extended recess, Court-watchers got the busiest week of the term thus far. The Court released seven decisions in argued cases involving all of the following: immigration law, tax law, capital sentencing in Arizona, international treaty law, criminal procedure, ERISA, and the ACCA. We saw a per curiam decision in an Establishment Clause case out of Puerto Rico, and four individual opinions relating to Monday’s orders list. Finally, the Justices heard oral argument in four cases and granted a case for next term. Block off some time for this one; here’s your extensive recap of the action at the Supreme Court this week.
This was the third and final week of the Court’s inter-sitting recess. Headlines this week came from the Court’s decision to allow the Trump Administration to enforce its new “public charge” immigration rule nationwide—over the dissent of four Justices (including a seven-page dissenting opinion from Justice Sotomayor). Here’s your brief for the week of February 17.
Another quiet week at 1 First St. NE. The Court is in the midst of its inter-sitting recess, so the Justices heard no oral arguments and released no opinions. The Court did issue a few orders relating to procedural matters. Next week is likely to follow the same trend; the Court is set to see heavy action resume on February 24. Here’s your brief for the week of February 10.
The Justices are now on a recess between their January and February sittings. As a result, all was quiet at the Court—though the same cannot be said across the street, where the impeachment trial for President Trump wrapped up on Wednesday. With its conclusion, Chief Justice Roberts can get back to focusing solely on Supreme Court matters. Here’s your very brief summary of what little happened this week for the nine Justices.