Monthly Archives: March 2016

Weekly Roundup

Weekly Roundup, March 25, 2016

Leave a comment

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a woman for carrying a stun gun to defend against an abusive former partner in Caetano v. Massachusetts. Reporting from Slate and NPR, with a general roundup of March 22nd’s orders from The New York Times.

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the Court sided with the workers who sought overtime pay for putting on and taking off protective gear for their “grueling and dangerous” work. Reporting from The National Law Journal, Forbes, The New York Times and AP.

Various news outlets have begun to research President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. The New York Times examines Garland’s record and style, while The Hill looks at some of his most intriguing cases. The Washington Post features impressions of Garland from schoolkids he tutors. Politico wrote that Garland has written “few seminal opinions” that encapsulate his legal ideology—and “that may be a good thing.”

Orrin Hatch continues his campaign to defend Senate Republican refusal to hold hearings for any Obama nominee. He writes on Bloomberg View that “[b]y seeking to thrust a confirmation battle into the middle of a particularly bitter presidential election, President Barack Obama carelessly risks further polarizing and politicizing the confirmation process, and further damaging the integrity and public standing of the Supreme Court as an institution.”

For a useful history lesson on the Supreme Court nomination process, check out this piece on Slate. (Short version: It’s political and always has been.)

What has been the impact of the Texas’s abortion regulation that the Court is currently reviewing? The New York Times and Think Progress report.

In this term’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Zubik v. Burwell, brought by religious non-profit groups who don’t want to provide access to birth control for female employees and students, as required under the ACA. Writes Dahlia Lithwick on Slate: “In case you believed the court’s conservatives have maybe come around on Obamacare—well, no. They still hate it.” Additional commentary from The Economist and Bill of Health Blog.

Weekly Roundup

Weekly Roundup, March 18, 2016

Leave a comment

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

On Wednesday, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court vacancy. The White House launched a twitter account (@SCOTUSnom) to push the case for Garland. Coverage from USA Today, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, and the New Yorker. In an interview with NPR, Obama called Garland “one of the best judges not just in the country, but of his generation.”

Senate Republicans have not wavered from their promise to block any consideration for Obama’s nominee. Reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Roll Call. Jason Steed at The Huffington Post recommended that Republicans should “take the best they can get” and confirm Garland.

Robert Sangers of Death Penalty Focus interviewed retired Justice Stevens on why he has come to believe we should abolish the death penalty.

Anticipating further developments in the battle between the FBI and Apple over Apple’s refusal to unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, NPR reviewed the Supreme Court’s past opinions on phone privacy.

A piece on Hong Kong Lawyer reminisced on a visit the Late Justice Scalia made to Hong Kong in February 2016.

Weekly Roundup

Weekly Roundup, March 11, 2016

Leave a comment

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

What did Justice Kennedy whisper to Justice Roberts? The National Law Journal wrote about the history of the Justices’ private bench conversations.

At ISCOTUSnow, Chris Schmidt looked at the usually silent Justice Thomas’s questions from the bench last week and a few of his other contributions to oral argument.

In an unsigned opinion, the Court overturned an Alabama Supreme Court ruling and held that states must recognize an adoption by a same-sex parent that occurred in another state. Reporting from SCOTUSblog, Vox, USA Today, and The New York Times. The Atlantic called it a “Writ of Duh.”

Senate Republicans remain unbending in their opposition to considering any potential nominees for Justice Scalia’s seat.  “The partisan divide . . . has all but guaranteed an eight-justice court for the next year,” reported The National Law Journal. “The significance of the Senate’s action lies in reminding us that the Supreme Court is not an ordinary court but a political court,” Judge Richard Posner wrote on The Washington Post. Further reporting from Bloomberg Politics, The Originalism Blog, CNN, and Politico.

Justice Ginsburg is publishing a book, “My Own Words,” in January 2017. The publisher describes it as “a selection of writings and speeches by Justice Ginsburg on wide-ranging topics, including gender equality, the workways of the Supreme Court, on being Jewish, on law and lawyers in opera, and on the value of looking beyond U.S. shores when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.”

On Friday, The Supreme Court blocked a Louisiana law that, according to its critics, would leave the state with just a single abortion clinic. Reporting from the New York Times and The Washington Post.

OT 2016

Justice Thomas Asks a Question!

Leave a comment

After ten years without asking a question at oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas broke his silence. His question came last week in Voisine v. United States, a case that considered whether a domestic assault conviction qualifies as a federal “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which in many states leads to a ban on firearms possession. (For more details on the case, check out SCOTUSBlog’s coverage.)

The assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Ilana H. Eisenstein faced an unusually quiet bench. Just as she was prepared to finish up her argument, Justice Thomas’s deep voice rumbled through the courtroom. “Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law?” he asked. Regular courtwatchers in the audience were startled. A sleepy morning at the Court suddenly got interesting. “Everyone shifted forward in their seats and there was a look of shock on many spectators’ faces,” reported Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. All of a sudden the most reticent of justices was suddenly channeling the spirit of his recently departed, unapologetically vocal colleague, as he relentlessly pressed Eisenstein.  At one point he even seemed to make a veiled reference to the possible implications of replacing his frequent ally Justice Scalia with a more liberal justice, when he described the right to possess a gun as a constitutional right “at least as of now.” Justice Thomas  followed up with an additional eight questions, in an exchange that lasted for six minutes. According to Adam Liptak in the New York Times, Thomas emerged the victor of this particular exchange.

Listen to the full exchange via Oyez here:

The full transcript is available here.

Justice Thomas, who was appointed to the Court in 1991, was never a particularly vocal presence in oral arguments, but he would contribute occasionally to the discussion. His most noted comments came in 2002 in oral arguments in Virginia v. Black. The case considered whether the criminalization of the burning of a cross violated the First Amendment.  According to the account of New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse, “it was not clear how the court was inclined to decide it— until Justice Clarence Thomas spoke.” Thomas’ brief comments transfixed the courtroom. A burning cross is “unlike any symbol in our society,’” its only purpose “to terrorize a population,” said Justice Thomas, the only African American on the Court. “The other justices gave him rapt attention” as he spoke, reported Greenhouse. “Afterward, the court’s mood appeared to have changed. While the justices had earlier appeared somewhat doubtful of the Virginia statute’s constitutionality, they now seemed quite convinced that they could uphold it as consistent with the First Amendment.”

Listen to the exchange here:

But between 2006 and last week, Thomas offered nary a question during oral argument. Thomas has offered varying explanations for his silence, the most common being that he feels the bench asks too many questions already and he would rather allow the attorneys to make their arguments. Some, most notably Jeffrey Toobin,  have criticized Thomas’ silence as indicating a problematic detachment from the proceedings of the Court.   The only comment he made during oral arguments during this period was a joke he cracked in 2013 during arguments in a case called Boyer v. Louisiana. There was considerable debate about what exactly Thomas said, but it was eventually confirmed to be a joke about the quality (or lack thereof) of a law degree from Harvard.  

Listen to it here:

Justice Thomas’ contributions, while rare, have added much to the dynamic of oral arguments at the High Court. Now the question is whether, with Justice Scalia gone, Justice Thomas will find more opportunities to step into the fray of oral argument, like he did last week.

Weekly Roundup

Weekly Roundup, March 4, 2016

Leave a comment

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

At Monday’s oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions from the bench for the first time in ten years. Reactions from NPR, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The New York Times.

“The public deserves a court that is more transparent and accountable,” wrote BloombergView’s Editorial Board, in a critique of the Supreme Court’s lack of a code-of-conduct policy for Justices.

The lights went out at the Court On Tuesday during oral arguments in Nichols v. United States, a case about sex offenders traveling abroad. Analysis on the case can be found at SCOTUSBlog.

Discussions on the implications of Scalia’s death continue. The LA Times did a retrospective of the last great clash between president and senate over a Supreme Court nomination during the Reagan Administration. The Guardian put forward the possibility of a Republican nomination, while The Economist discussed the damage the Republicans are doing “to the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of the nation’s disputes and to the American system of justice itself.” CNN discussed its own poll that showed most Americans want to see Obama fill the vacancy with a nomination, but they are divided on what ideological leaning they’d like that nominee to have.

Tuesday, the Justices released two opinions on Lockhart v. United States and Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.. Commentary on Lockhart from Bloomberg View, and Gobeille on Forbes. Politico covered both.

The Court heard one of the most anticipated cases of the Term on Wednesday in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to Texas’s new abortion regulations. The LA Times wrote that without Justice Antonin Scalia, “it is highly doubtful the Texas case will yield a broad conservative ruling that gives states a green light to adopt ever-stricter restrictions on abortion.“ Previews of the issues can be found at Fox News, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and the ISCOTUS blog. The Washington Post highlighted an interview with Justice Ginsburg on how she thought landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade should have gone differently. At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick argued that the powerful presence of three female justices in this case showed that “the gender playing field at the high court was finally leveled.” Other post-argument analysis at USAToday, New York Times,  and NPR.

Abortion, OT 2015

Abortion Back at the Supreme Court—What to Read

Leave a comment

Today we hear oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s most significant abortion rights case since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). At issue is a Texas law that requires abortion providers to comply with the same health regulations that apply to ambulatory surgical centers and that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. As we await reports from the Court, here are some readings that illuminate the issues.

Check out Health Affairs Blog for a detailed critical analysis of the effects these regulations would have on access to abortion in Texas. The conclusion: not only would the law do little to make abortions safer, but, by reducing the number of abortion providers, it would have potential harmful health effects.

At the Atlantic, Garrett Epps argues that precedent requires the Court to strike down these abortion regulations. The 5th Circuit ruling that upheld the Texas regulations, he argues, “verges on old-fashioned defiance” of Supreme Court precedent.

On the other side, turn to the Washington Examiner to read the president of Students for Life of America defend the Texas regulations as a necessary fix for a an area of health services rife with safety issues.

Which way will the Court go? For some efforts to get into the head of the likely swing vote in the case, Justice Kennedy, go here and here.

The New York Times published a fascinating profile of the lawyers who will argue the case before the Supreme Court. The Times also has a helpful Q&A on the abortion case.