On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases, the final oral arguments scheduled this Term. Thanks to all who indulged my predictions for this Term. It’s been a fun, but at times rocky ride. I will have a more in depth review of my past predictions and success/failure rate this summer. I … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Glossip v. Gross and Mata v. Holder
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, which asks whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Kingsley v. Hendrickson
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the historic case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage cases, which ask two questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?, and 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Same-Sex Marriage Cases
Sorry, it’s taken me awhile to analyze the Michigan v. EPA, which the Supreme Court heard back on March 25. The case asks whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. I predict a 5-4 decision in favor … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in EPA Cases
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, which asks (1) whether the government’s “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, applies only to real property and not to … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in one case on Tuesday, McFadden v. U.S., which asks whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue – a substance with a chemical structure that is “substantially similar” to a schedule I or II drug and has a “substantially similar” effect on the user … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in McFadden v. US
The Supreme Court heard one oral argument on Monday in Johnson v. United States, which asks whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. This is a very difficult case to predict. As Figure 1 indicates, the total question count is very close: … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Johnson v. US
The Supreme Court heard two bankruptcy cases on Wednesday. The first case, Harris v. Viegelahn, asks whether, when a debtor in good faith converts a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, undistributed funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee are refunded to the debtor (as the Third Circuit held … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Harris v. Viegelahn and Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank
The Supreme Court heard two oral arguments in patent cases on Tuesday. I’m predicting the winners based on the method of counting up the number of questions. The first case, Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, asks whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Commil v. Cisco and Kimble v. Marvel
The Supreme Court held only one oral argument on Monday. I’m predicting the winners based on the method of counting up the number of questions. After a very successful start of the Term (7 of 9 correct in the first month), my prediction percentage has slipped considerably to 52%, so you should take everything … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Brumfield v. Cain