Marshall Geisser Law | Wednesday round-up
25483
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-25483,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive
 

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

Today the court hears oral argument in 2 criminal-procedure cases. The very first is Rosales-Mireles v. United States, which asks when incorrect applications of the United States Sentencing Standards ought to be remedied on plain-error evaluation. Evan Lee previewed the case forthis blog Robin Grieff and Hillary Rich offer a sneak peek at Cornell Law School’sLegal Information Institute Counting to 5 (podcast) likewise sneak peeks the case, while Subscript offers a graphic explainer.

Today’s 2nd case is Dahda v. United States, where the justices will think about how broadly to check out a statute needing the suppression of proof gotten under a wiretap order that goes beyond a judge’s territorial jurisdiction. Richard Re had this blog‘s sneak peek. Axel Schamis and Katherine Van Bramer sneak peek the case for Cornell; Counting to 5 (podcast) likewise uses a sneak peek. Subscript’s graphic explainer is here.

The other day the justices released orders from last Friday’s conference; they did not approve any brand-new cases or do something about it on the federal government’s demand that they examine a difficulty to a lower-court order avoiding the Trump administration from relaxing the Deferred Action for Youth Arrivals program. Amy Howe covers the orders list for this blog; her protection initially appeared atHowe on the Court At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel keeps in mind that the court summarily reversed in CNH Industrial v. Reese, mentioning that the lower court had actually differed “regular concepts of agreement analysis” in concluding that the retiree-benefits arrangement in an ended collective-bargaining contract had actually vested for life. At HeplerBroom’s blog, Benjamin Wilson takes a look at the cert rejection in CareFirst v. Attias, which includes a standing problem that “would have had significant ramifications for data-breach lawsuits and in class actions typically.”

At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that the justices likewise “turned away a difficulty to California’s 10- day waiting duration for guns purchases that is planned to defend against spontaneous violence and suicides,” in addition to another cert petition submitted by gun-rights supporters, “underscor[ing the court’s] continued unwillingness to enter a nationwide dispute over weapon control roiled by a series of mass shootings consisting of one at a Florida school recently.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that Justice Clarence Thomas composed a solo dissent to the judgment, implicating his coworkers of “turning the 2nd Modification into a ‘disfavored right.'” Extra protection of the cert rejection in Silvester v. Becerra and the Thomas dissent originates from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Ariane de Style at CNN, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Ronn Blitzer at Law & Crime, David Sherfinski for The Washington Times, Lydia Wheeler at The Hill, and Pete Williams atNBC News Commentary originates from Steven Mazie at The Financial expert’s Democracy in America blog site.

The other day the justices heard oral arguments in 2 criminal cases. The very first was Currier v. Virginia, which asks exactly what takes place to an accused’s double jeopardy defenses when he grant consecutive trials for numerous, overlapping offenses. Scott Bomboy talks about the case atConstitution Daily The other day’s 2nd case was City of Hays v. Vogt, which asks whether a probable-cause hearing belongs to a criminal case within the significance of the Fifth Modification’s self-incrimination stipulation. At The National Law Journal (membership or registration needed), Tony Mauro keeps in mind that “all 3 legal representatives who r[o] se to speak [throughout the oral argument in Vogt] were previous law clerks” of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in exactly what “might be the very first time that 3 previous clerks of a single justice [have] argu[ed] prior to their justice.” Mark Walsh offers a first-hand account of the other day’s courtroom session for this blog.

At the Associated Press, Michael Kunzelman reports that “[a]71- year-old Louisiana prisoner whose case resulted in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court choice on juvenile-offender sentences was rejected parole Monday, more than a half-century after he eliminated a constable’s deputy at age 17.” Extra protection originates from Grace Toohey at The Advocate.

Quickly:

  • For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that a person of the prisoners included in the Netflix documentary series “Making a Killer,” Brendan Dassey, “asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw away the confession he made more than a years back, stating it was incorrectly persuaded.”
  • At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that Justice Neil Gorsuch “holds the choosing vote in a case to be argued Feb. 26 that might impact the monetary practicality of unions that are significant fans of Democratic prospects and causes.”
  • At Factor’s Hit and Run blog site, Damon Root takes a look at “3 Supreme Court cases to enjoy” throughout the February argument session.
  • At another Factor blog site, the Volokh Conspiracy, Samuel Bray prompts the justices to approve a cert petition that “raises a basic concern about how the First Modification engages with church home cases.”

We depend on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or understand of a current (released in the last 2 or 3 days) short article, post, podcast, or op-ed connecting to the Supreme Court that you ‘d like us to think about for addition in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared initially on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment