27 Nov Monday round-up
Today, the very first day of the December argument session, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in 2 cases. The very first is Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, an obstacle to the constitutionality of inter partes evaluation, a procedure utilized to identify the credibility of existing patents. Ronald Mann had this blog‘s argument sneak peek. Another sneak peek originates from The George Washington Law Evaluation’s On the Docket blog site. The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the case, arguing that “[i] nter partes evaluation was well-intended, however any financial advantages aren’t worth the constitutional damage.” At the Yale Journal on Policy’s Notice and Comment blog site, Philip Hamburger keeps that “patents are residential or commercial property, which can not be revoked outside the courts.”
The 2nd argument of the day remains in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, which asks whether the board performing an inter partes evaluation should release a last composed choice regarding all the claims raised by an opposition. Ronald Mann previewed the case forthis blog On the Docket likewise provides a sneak peek of the case.
For Fox News, Expense Mears reports that “[a] dvocates on both sides of the concern” in Wednesday’s case, Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the federal government should acquire a warrant for cell-site-location info, “hope the justices are now prepared to clarify standards on access to digital records.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak discusses why “the case might change personal privacy law in the digital period.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Stephen Sachs prompts the court to “establish a contemporary 4th Modification teaching … [that] would acknowledge the genuine claims of police however set unbiased limits– such as the period of an invasion or the nature of the information took– that constrain those claims.” Extra commentary on Carpenter originates from Margaret Sullivan in The Washington Post, who checks out the ramifications of the case for reporters, and from the editorial board of The New York Times.
In advance of next Tuesday’s oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the court will think about whether the First Modification bars Colorado from needing a baker to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding event, Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that in a term filled with prominent cases, “it is the justices’ 3rd date with same-sex marital relationship that’s controling the docket.” At Casetext, David Boyle goes over the reply short submitted by the cakeshop recently, arguing that “under Petitioners’ ‘forced speech’ theory of the case, bakers might rather potentially victimize interracial marital relationships and choose not to offer them a wedding event cake, lawfully“
- For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional difficulty to the federal restriction on sports wagering, “a broad judgment for New Jersey might have effects for other manner ins which the federal government aims to press policy choices on state authorities.”
- At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that “50- year-old [Justice Neil Gorsuch] has actually been practically precisely what conservatives wished for and liberals feared when he signed up with the court in April.”
- At the Associated Press, Jessica Gresko reports that thanks to Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Sonia Sotomayor, “[g] ames produced by iCivics [that] teach trainees ideas from how the country’s court system works and how laws are made to how governmental projects work and exactly what it resembles to be on a jury” are now offered in both English and Spanish.
- At The Economic expert’s Espresso blog site, Steven Mazie takes a look at Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, which will be argued tomorrow and which includes the whistleblower defenses of the Dodd-Frank Act.
- At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg recommends that “[c] ataloging a few of the circumstances where courts integrate mathematics assists light up how the Court ought to continue in Gill v. Whitford,” where they will choose whether Wisconsin’s electoral maps are the item of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
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) post, 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!