Marshall Geisser Law | Tuesday round-up
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17986,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

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Courtroom will hear oral argument in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, through which the justices will take into account the suitable customary of evaluation for figuring out non-statutory insider standing in a chapter continuing. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Axel Schamis and Katherine Van Bramer present a preview for Cornell Legislation Faculty’s Legal Information Institute.

Yesterday the court docket issued orders from its October 27 convention, however didn’t agree to listen to any new instances. Amy Howe has this blog’s protection, which first appeared at Howe on the Court.

Yesterday the court docket additionally heard argument in two criminal-procedure instances. The primary was Ayestas v. Davis, which includes the requirements for funding an investigation establishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel declare in a capital case. Steve Vladeck has this blog’s argument evaluation. Further protection of the argument comes from the Associated Press. In an evaluation for The Washington Post, Brandon Garrett contends that “[t]he case goes to the core of what we anticipate our authorized system to do: totally uncover the reality — on either side — when probably the most critical prison accusations are delivered to court docket.” And in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on Ayestas, arguing that “[n]o one ought to face execution as a result of they’re too poor to placed on a protection.” Yesterday’s second argument was in Wilson v. Sellers, which asks when a federal court docket in a habeas case ought to “look by” a abstract state-court ruling to evaluation the final reasoned state-court resolution.

At The Hill, Julia Manchester experiences that in remarks earlier than a bunch of aspiring public-interest attorneys final week, “Supreme Courtroom Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed … that she doesn’t plan on retiring anytime quickly.” Andrew Hamm coated the occasion for this blog. Further protection comes from Jimmy Hoover at Law360 (subscription required).

At The Washington Publish’s Volokh Conspiracy weblog, Dale Carpenter summarizes an amicus temporary he filed final week in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether or not the First Modification bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony, through which he and the temporary’s co-author Eugene Volokh argue that “the Free Speech Clause doesn’t defend a baker’s proper to refuse [the same-sex couple’s] request as a result of baking truffles is conduct that’s neither traditionally nor inherently a type of protected speech.” At Take Care, one other tackle Masterpiece Cakeshop comes from Thomas Berg and Douglas Laycock, who filed an amicus temporary specializing in the religion-clause points within the case and who preserve that “[a]n objector … who raises a declare of conscience within the religiously important context of a marriage must be protected as a lot as these on the opposite facet of the tradition struggle over marriage equality.”


  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in two procedural instances, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, through which the justices will resolve whether or not appellate closing dates are jurisdictional, andNational Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, which can decide the venue for challenges to Clear Water Act guidelines. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this weblog in varied capacities, is among the many counsel to the respondents on this case.]
  • At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro experiences California metropolis prevailed yesterday in its effort to keep away from Supreme Courtroom evaluation of a regulatory-takings case, in 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood, regardless of having declined to consent to the submitting of amicus briefs in help of the cert petition, “an uncommon transfer in Supreme Courtroom observe, partially as a result of it might convey that there’s one thing to cover.”
  • On the Associated Press, Jessica Gresko experiences on a brand new film about “a 32-year-old [Justice Thurgood] Marshall, with one Supreme Courtroom argument beneath his belt and greater than a decade earlier than his victory within the landmark Brown v. Board of Training case that outlawed segregation in public colleges,” noting that Marshall’s son has mentioned that “[t]he filmmakers faithfully captured his father’s humorousness, his confidence and his mastery of the regulation.”
  • On the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty weblog, Ilya Shapiro and others urge the court docket to evaluation a commerce-clause problem to the itemizing of the Utah prairie canine as an endangered species although, they argue, it “has no industrial worth: there isn’t any marketplace for it—they make horrible pets—or any product created from it.”

We depend on our readers to ship us hyperlinks for our round-up. When you’ve got or know of a latest (revealed within the final two or three days) article, publish, podcast, or op-ed referring to the Supreme Courtroom that you just’d like us to think about for inclusion within the round-up, please ship it to roundup [at] Thanks!

The publish Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment