A fascinating passage in Greenhouse’s piece on the DOMA case quotes the lawyer for Wainwright (the state of Florida) in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that there was a constitutional right to counsel for felony defendants in the state courts:
During the argument on Jan. 15, 1963, a Florida assistant attorney general, Bruce R. [...]
Today, the Supreme Court heard argument in Shelby County v. Holder. The transcript is very much worth reading.
(Note to lay readers: I attempt to explain the act at issue here about midway down the post if you want some help following the last block quote).
One part is pretty breathtaking. Recall that Justice Scalia [...]
Anderson noted that Chief Justice Roberts roughed up a lawyer from the solicitor General’s office for describing a changed position by the Secretary of Labor; he was annoyed that the SG didn’t explicitly state that the change was due to a change of administrations. Anderson linked an article that further explains what the Chief [...]
Tomorrow, or possibly later in the week, is going to be momentous for the United States Supreme Court. Among other things, we’re going to have decisions in the Arizona immigration act case, cases from Alabama and Arkansas cases involving whether it is constitutional to sentence juveniles to life-without-parole, and the First Amendment/stolen valor case about prosecuting [...]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the Health Care Reform cases, carefully defining what it intends to hear and defining an extraordinary series of oral arguments. As we knew we could rely on him to do, Lyle Denniston explains what’s up:
The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the [...]
Nina Totenberg has an interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens on Morning Edition this morning. He’s just publishing a book, called Five Chiefs because he has personally known five of the seventeen Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and served under three of them.
He talks about the differences in the [...]
The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit on a sentencing issue, and the Sixth Circuit had to deal with the case on remand. The particular issue is not so much generally interesting, but the concurance from Sixth Circuit Judges Merrit and Martin on remand is startlingly blunt, in a slightly esoteric but unmistakable way [...]
My headline is an intentional invert of Jerry Mitchell’s misleading headline in today’s Clarion Ledger. He wrote: ”Appeal by reputed Klansman Seale still could be heard by high court”. His article starts:
Reputed Mississippi Klansman James Seale has another chance of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear his case
Seale’s appeal of his [...]
The SCOTUS blog is having some posts about the U.S. Supreme Court and race. One is a nice discussion of two decisions from the 19th Century limiting the scope of the Reconstruction Amendments by Robert Cottrol, a professor of law and history at George Washington University. It begins:
Chances are if you went to law school sometime in the last half-century you absorbed a certain narrative about race and the Supreme Court. The Court was the hero of that narrative. Its 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education cut through the Gordian knot that had long stifled racial progress in the nation. The decision, the first act of the new Warren Court, gave strength and heart to the postwar Civil Rights movement and ultimately courage to the political branches. It helped precipitate a civil rights revolution, one in which the law went from being an active abetter of American-style apartheid, Jim Crow, to being the chief vehicle for attacking racial discrimination. The Court’s school desegregation decision would become exhibit A in the argument for a robust view of the judicial power. The decision would also give the Supreme Court a moral authority that has increased in the ensuing decades with greater national acceptance of the 1954 decision.
That narrative is true as far as it goes. And yet Brown and the undoubted boost that it gave to the cause of racial justice in postwar America have served to obscure an unpleasant truth. If the Supreme Court played an important Continue reading SCOTUS blog legal history post about the Supreme Court and civil rights in the late 19thC
It seems the Ninth Circuit has (or had…) a rule that a corporation’s principal place of business was were most of its business was done, giving California a huge advantage. The Hertz Corporation was not incorporated there, and had its headquarters in New Jersey. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit, applying its most-of-the-business rule, held there [...]