tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37948872011-04-21T16:18:25.987-04:00Supreme Court BlogA collection of stuff about the Supreme CourtTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comBlogger1331100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1130764924110490232005-10-31T08:02:00.000-05:002006-03-14T18:17:24.356-05:00Today, Oct. 31, 2005No. 04-885 Central Virginia Community College v. KatzWith Rehnquist gone, does the "Federalism Revolution" live? This case involves whether Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity via the Bankruptcy Clause. I'm guessing federalism lives, and states are safe from bankruptcy trustees. Reverse.Update: On Jan. 23, 2006, the Court Affirmed per Justice Stevens. Opinion Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1129144803854466632005-10-12T14:33:00.000-04:002005-10-13T15:38:40.496-04:00More lingering questions:An alert reader mails to point out that a few things have not yet changed in the wake of Chief Justice Roberts's investiture. First, this page still does not list him as a member of the court; second, this page does not list him among the Chief Justices. The reader's third link had to do with circuit assignments, but that has been taken care of.Update: The first page Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1129091712484761202005-10-12T00:20:00.000-04:002006-03-14T18:35:20.410-05:00Cases for Wednesday, Oct. 12No. 04-473 Garcetti v. Ceballos.Quickly, here is a case where a police officer testified about his doubts that a prosecution should go through. Not surprisingly, he was fired. He brought a Section 1983 action claiming that he was retaliated against for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The problem is that it's not clear that he has any First Amendment rights Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1128704431832576892005-10-07T11:47:00.000-04:002005-10-10T12:00:34.116-04:00Cases for Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005No. 04-980 Brown v. SandersIn California, a jury can find that a murder conviction warrants the death penalty by finding that special circumstances make the murder particularly bad. In this case, the jury found four special circumstances specified by California law and sentenced respondent Ronald Sanders to death. On appeal, the California Supreme Court set aside Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1128102351806318172005-09-30T13:35:00.000-04:002005-09-30T13:45:51.813-04:00Congratulations to John Roberts!Today is Chief Justice John Roberts's first day on the job. A few questions that linger in the wake of his confirmation:1) What will become of the clerks he hired for 2005?2) What will become of Rehnquist's clerks? Article III Groupie is on the case.3) Will there be an official portrait that includes Roberts and O'Connor, or will they just wait for the new guy or Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1127843486508590452005-09-27T13:29:00.000-04:002005-11-14T14:42:36.980-05:00Oh, and...Cases for October 5, 2005No. 04-623 Gonzales v. OregonThis is the assisted suicide case. Tough to predict, as will be many cases this year. The old adage that the Court doesn't grant cert. to affirm can't apply here, since two members who may very well have voted to grant cert. in order to reverse might not be around for the decision. A case that might otherwise have produced a 5-4 Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1127828263586888802005-09-27T09:32:00.000-04:002005-09-27T13:28:48.346-04:00Scotusblog notes (here) that the orders list is up from the Long Conference. The Court granted cert. in several cases, and noted jurisdiction in one. The last case granted, Samson v. California, was in forma pauperis. I don't know whether Samson was proceeding pro se, but if he were, who would assign an advocate for him on the merits? Usually, it is the Chief's perrogative, but there is no Chief Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1127168737835602852005-09-19T17:12:00.000-04:002005-11-14T14:45:59.970-05:00First Monday: Cases for Oct. 3, 2005No. 03-1238 IBP v. Alvarez & No. 04-66 Tum v. Barber FoodsHere are two cases about whether employers must pay employees for time that they spend putting on safety gear and walking to their job. The Ninth Circuit says they do. The First Circuit says they don't. An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act says employers do not have to pay for time spent going toTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1118084144827365632005-06-06T14:53:00.000-04:002005-06-06T14:55:44.830-04:00Not quite as good as a bobbleheadAn Ebay entrepreneur is offering Supreme Court Justice Figurines for $25.00. I applaud the spirit of this person, but I somehow doubt these will become the collector's items that the Green Bag bobbleheads are.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1113398920509803602005-04-13T09:27:00.000-04:002005-04-13T09:28:40.510-04:00Speaking of RehnquistIf anyone would like to sell a Rehnquist bobblehead, please contact me.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1098880342113891472004-10-27T08:27:00.000-04:002004-10-27T08:32:22.113-04:00Chief Justice Rehnquist
The Chief had surgery this weekend in connection with thyroid cancer. Lets all pause in speculating as to who Bush or Kerry would appoint should Rehnquist leave the bench and hope for a speedy recovery.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1097013886740323432004-10-05T17:59:00.000-04:002004-10-06T09:46:26.943-04:00Cases for Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2005:
No. 02-1028 Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby
Oh my, what a fascinating case. From the 11th Circuit's opinion: "This case, the facts of which began in Australia and ended in Alabama, is about Himalaya clauses, Clauses Paramount, COGSA, the package limitation defense, FBLs, FIATA, and the like. In short, it is a bill of lading case." I'm going to punt on this one Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1096942454117139202004-10-04T20:43:00.000-04:002004-10-04T22:14:14.120-04:00Cases for Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004
No. 03-409 KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impressions, Inc.
In this case, two competing manufacturers of permanent makeup (i.e. tattooed on makeup) are in a dispute because they both use the term "Micro Colors" to describe their products. Lasting Impressions holds a federal trademark on its "Micro Colors" logo (which the Ninth Circuit reproduced in its Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1096897912623081802004-10-04T09:08:00.000-04:002004-10-04T09:54:39.723-04:00Aw, what the heck.
It's First Monday, and there's almost no chance that I'll be able to keep up with the Supreme Court this year, since I am being kept very busy at my new job. But nevertheless, here are predictions for today's cases:
No. 03-407 Kowalski v. Tesmer
Here is a good discussion of the case, which is about whether Michigan can restrict appointing appellate counsel to those Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1089646453638370442004-07-12T10:13:00.000-04:002004-07-12T11:34:13.636-04:00Darn.
SCOTUSblog reports that Paul Clement has been nominated acting Solicitor General. I guess I just have to hope the President sees the light and nominates me for the permanent position.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1089118857748839172004-07-06T09:00:00.000-04:002004-07-06T09:00:57.746-04:00Here's a story about the huge bonuses that Supreme Court clerks are getting. At this point, you should make up your own joke about me not getting a $150K Supreme Court clerkship bonus. Do me a favor and make it so I don't sound bitter, which I'm not. No really, I'm not. :)Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1087299651464282812004-06-15T07:28:00.000-04:002004-06-15T07:40:51.463-04:00Is this what I have come to? On the day after the Court released its opinion in Newdow, I am not engaging in an in-depth discussion of prudential standing. Instead, I am pointing you to Underneath Their Robes, a new blog about the Federal Judiciary. A recent post describes the recent wedding of two former Supreme Court Clerks, and then goes on to bitterly lament the author's own failed SupremeTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1081275734314930862004-04-06T14:22:00.000-04:002004-04-06T14:28:15.920-04:00Goldstein Howe recently posted their petition for certiorari in a case styled Crum v. Flowers. The case is an appeal from an order of the Eleventh Circuit, dismissing for lack of standing their clients' efforts to enforce an injunction entered in a case in which the petitioners are not parties. The merits aside, Goldstein Howe has adopted what (to me at least) seems to be a novel approach to a Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1074301765653184952004-01-16T20:09:00.000-05:002004-01-16T20:14:43.420-05:00Awesome!
Totally unexpectedly and out of the blue, I just received my Justice John Paul Stevens bobblehead from The Green Bag. Thanks Green Bag! You guys are awesome!
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1074109805899267212004-01-14T14:50:00.000-05:002004-01-14T15:01:52.186-05:00Update
The Court has decided several cases since I last wrote here. Rather than detail them one by one, here is a handy chart to show you that I am doing pretty well so far at predicting the outcomes. Of course, if I recall correctly, I did pretty well at the beginning of the last term too, before a nasty slide in the last half of the year.
Ted's Predictions
Date ArguedCasePredictionResult
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1071519238597312882003-12-15T15:13:00.000-05:002003-12-15T15:16:34.373-05:00Cases for November
Well, you keep coming to see what I have predicted, even though I have not updated this site since the second week of the Term. The least I figure I can do is make some predictions so that you can see whether I can be even more wrong about this year’s predictions than I was about last year’s.
On the other hand, I am doing pretty well so far. I apparently correctly Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1066224709917759702003-10-15T09:31:00.000-04:002003-10-15T09:31:49.660-04:00Not behind quite yet
This is pretty bad: We’re only in the second week of oral arguments and I’m already posting my predictions only minutes before oral argument is scheduled to start.
No. 02-473 U.S. v. Banks
Full disclosure: I did some work on this case while I was at Goldstein & Howe. In this case, police knocked on Banks’s apartment door, waited 15-20 seconds, then burst in to execute a Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1066137324453247712003-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:002003-10-14T09:15:24.410-04:00I suppose you all are wondering
…where my predictions are for this week. Well here they are:
No. 02-763 Barnhart v. Thomas
Jo Anne Barnhart, as the Commissioner of Social Security, has the privilege of being the named defendant in many a lawsuit. For the same reason, she also winds up in the Supreme Court quite often. In this case, Pauline Thomas had been a housekeeper until she had a heart Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1065622479776769962003-10-08T10:14:00.000-04:002003-10-08T10:14:39.743-04:00Check out Tom Goldstein's preview of OT03 on Slate.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1065206483980233102003-10-03T14:41:00.000-04:002003-10-03T14:41:23.710-04:00Cases for Wednesday, Oct. 8:
No. 02-658 Alaska DEC v. EPA
So there’s a company called Cominco that mines zinc above the Arctic Circle. Several generators power the mine. Cominco decided that the mine was not producing zinc fast enough, and so needed more power. The company wanted to increase the production of one of the generators and add a new generator.
Unfortunately for Cominco, Alaska Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1064411407969442552003-09-24T09:49:00.000-04:002003-09-24T09:50:07.453-04:00Predictions for Tuesday, Oct. 7
No. 02-628 Frew v. Hawkins
The first case to be argued this term has to do with the Medicaid Act. Petitioners sued various state officials in their official capacities, alleging that children were not being provided their rights under a particular Medicaid program. This case is similar to Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 289 F.3d 852 (2002), which was the subject Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1063804671228446842003-09-17T09:11:00.000-04:002003-09-17T09:17:51.150-04:00Oh and by the way
I'm not going to make a detailed prediction for the twelve campaign finance cases. They are technically part of OT2002, but the predictions are over for that term. In addition, I don't really have the time to go through the hundreds of pages of the decision and opinions below. I will predict, however, that portions of the law will be upheld, while others will be found to be Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1063802663902418442003-09-17T08:34:00.000-04:002003-09-17T08:44:23.443-04:00I'm back!
It's now the middle of September, which means that the Court will start arguments next month. Although Supreme Handicapper Sam Heldman has retired both from predicting Supreme Court cases and blogging in general, that only means that this blog has become your SOLE SOURCE of quality predictions of Supreme Court cases. If last year is any indication, you can expect that I will be Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1057930097312426522003-07-11T09:28:00.000-04:002003-07-11T09:31:52.730-04:00I am forced to agree with Eugene Volokh that the Nevada Supreme Court has gone off its rocker. In this decision, the court ordered the Nevada legislature to fund public education. That's right, the court ordered, by writ of mandamus, that the legislature fulfill its constitutional duty. This is wrong on so many levels.
The situation is this: Nevada is full of short-sighted voters, who Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-1056984646535286112003-06-30T10:50:00.000-04:002003-06-30T10:50:46.530-04:00I won something!
Although I have not tabulated the final, miserable standings for the prediction contest, there was another contest going on all this time. Sean Carter at Lawpsided sponsored the "Most Valuable Justice" Contest. Participants were invited to choose which Justice would fare the best over the course of the Term, where points were awarded for being on the winning side of a case andTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-957194722003-06-16T11:44:00.000-04:002003-06-16T11:44:33.650-04:00The Score
I know you are all suffering to know how I am faring against Sam Heldman in predicting Supreme Court cases. At last count, Sam was kicking my proverbial rear end. After today's decisions, he still is. Ted 38-25. Sam 47-16.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-949428962003-05-27T11:14:00.000-04:002003-05-27T11:14:56.983-04:00Decisions
It was a terrible day for predictions here. I incorrectly predicted reverse in Nevada DHR v. Hibbs, while the Court affirmed (Sam Heldman also predicted reverse). In Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, the Court reversed, contrary to my prediction that it would affirm, and in Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. DOI, the Court reversed, contrary to Sam's and my prediction that it Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-946491402003-05-20T16:17:00.000-04:002003-05-20T16:17:46.680-04:00People must be reading this blog
I figure that the blog must have "made it" when I start getting e-mail taunting me about my incorrect predictions. Such was the case today, when I received e-mail pointing out that there was no reversal in PRMA v. Concannon (now known as PRMA v. Walsh), contrary to my prediction. Sam Heldman also predicted the case incorrectly. On the other hand, both Sam and ITedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-938017282003-05-05T10:37:00.000-04:002003-05-05T10:37:51.836-04:00Telemarkers Lose!
The Court today decided No. 01-1806 Madigan v. Telemarkeing Associates. As both Sam and I predicted, the court REVERSED. I know that I have neglected to document last week's decisions, but I am sure you know what they are by now. Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-937598162003-05-04T16:27:00.000-04:002003-05-04T16:27:51.826-04:0015 Seconds of Fame
Tony Mauro mentions my scoop on the notebooks in the Court (and this blog). If anyone gets a hold of the Rehnquist bobble doll and doesn't want it, let me know. I can add it to my growing collection of Supreme Court paraphenalia. So far, my collection includes one bookmark from the Supreme Court Library, one quill that Tom Goldstein gave me from the oral argument in Nike v.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-935759572003-05-01T00:29:00.000-04:002003-05-01T00:29:32.183-04:00No. 02-306 Virginia v. Hicks
When it came out, I read the opinion of the most excellent Virginia Supreme Court, which, incidentally has plans to swear in me and the other two or three hundred survivors of the February bar examination on June 3. Richmond decided that it would combat drugs by making sure that anyone on the streets outside public housing had a good reason to be there. If the Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-935747772003-05-01T00:05:00.000-04:002003-05-01T00:05:40.000-04:00No. 02-182 Georgia v. Ashcroft
Georgia whines that its voting plan was struck down and shouldn’t have been. AFFIRM
No. 02-695 Fitzgerald v. Racing Assoc. of Central Iowa
I had a temptation to say “Cententral Iowa” rather than Central Iowa (see below). In this case, race tracks complained that they are taxed at a higher rate than “riverboat” casinos.
No, you read it right the first time.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-935736302003-04-30T23:43:00.000-04:002003-04-30T23:46:42.000-04:00Predictions
As the term draws to a close, I present this weeks post-dictions. I think this is my worst week ever, having predicted absolutely none of the cases before they were argued. Even so, here are my predictions:*
*Of course, I always end up posting in chunks, so you have probably already read the predictions by the time you scroll down to this. Nevertheless, I continue with the Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-935311342003-04-30T10:07:00.000-04:002003-04-30T10:07:37.850-04:00Political Site of the Day?
I have just been awarded the dubious distinction of "Political Site of the Day," evidence of which can be found at this site. I see that previous recipients have included "Rush Limaugh Online" and the excellent We Love the Iraqi Information Minister site.
I am a little leery of the designation of this as a "political" site. I hope that my fervent centrist ideology Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-932357432003-04-25T08:20:00.000-04:002003-04-25T08:20:42.416-04:00Notebooks now allowed at oral argument
This may be the first place to report that the Supreme Court now allows those attending oral arguments to bring in a notebook and pen. I do not know when this policy started, but it was sometime between the arguments in Clay v. United States and Nike v. Kasky. Before this new policy, visitors were not allowed to bring in any paper or writing material. Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-932350332003-04-25T07:55:00.000-04:002003-04-25T07:56:08.000-04:00Apparently, at least one person does read this blog. Ken, a criminal lawyer in Virginia who runs Crimlaw blog, sent along his congratulations and welcome to the Virginia Bar. Thanks Ken!Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-931999642003-04-24T17:13:00.000-04:002003-04-24T17:13:37.000-04:00I PASSED! (The Virginia Bar Exam)Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-930893552003-04-22T23:35:00.000-04:002003-04-22T23:39:00.000-04:00No. 01-950 Hillside Dairy, et al. v. William J. Lyons
The second case argued today had to do with whether a particular federal law immunizes California’s milk laws from scrutiny under the commerce clause, or alternatively, the privileges and immunities clause. Goldstein Howe’s write-up (by Jacob) is excellent. Although I haven’t read the briefs, I feel pretty confident that the Commerce ClauseTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-930865692003-04-22T22:47:00.000-04:002003-04-22T22:48:09.000-04:00Today's decisions
Of course, it's also possible that I am drunk with power after my three correct predictions in this cases that came down today. In Clackamas Gastroenterology v. Wells, the Court REVERSED, where I had predicted Reverse and Sam had predicted Affirm. This means I now trail Sam by a mere four cases. In the other two cases, the Court reached the conclusion that both Sam and I Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-930859542003-04-22T22:36:00.000-04:002003-04-22T23:07:14.000-04:00No. 02-634 Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle
This case was argued today. Because Findlaw does not have any briefs in this case, and also because I am lazy, I am relying on Sam Heldman’s description of the case. Funnily enough, though I concede that he knows way more than me on this issue, which, by the way, has to do (broadly) with arbitrability of class action claims, and even though his isTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-930845062003-04-22T22:10:00.000-04:002003-04-22T22:11:25.000-04:00No. 02-524 Price v. Vincent
I know what you’re thinking. That was argued yesterday, Ted! You slacked again! I think I would be a little more worried about it if I thought anyone was actually reading. Nevertheless, I trudge on. The standard disclaimers apply: I have not read or heard any accounts of the oral arguments in the cases I am about to predict. I am forced, in fact, to predict Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-923541052003-04-10T07:50:00.000-04:002003-04-10T07:50:37.966-04:00Loan forgiveness for law clerks?
Tony Mauro has a report about the Supreme Court's budget hearing, at which Justices Thomas and Kennedy testified. According to the report, the Justices are disappointed at the lack of diversity in the applicant pool for potential Supreme Court clerks, and think high law school debt may be to blame. Rep. Frank Wolf suggested that the court adopt a loan Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-921497892003-04-07T10:20:00.000-04:002003-04-09T14:23:35.000-04:00Today's Opinions
The Court today handed down No. 01-1289, State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Campbell. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court REVERSED. Both Sam and I predicted AFFIRM.
The Court also decided No. 02-215, Pacificare Health Systems v. Book. Both Sam and I correctly predicted that the Court would REVERSE, which it did in an opinion by Justice Scalia.
Finally, in the cross burning Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-918464982003-04-02T10:11:00.000-05:002003-04-02T10:11:08.670-05:00Today's Decision
The Court affirmed in Kentucky Association of Health Plans v. Miller. Both Sam and I got it right.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-918451082003-04-02T09:46:00.000-05:002003-04-02T09:49:04.000-05:00If I finish this post in the next 50 minutes, I will have predicted 2/3 of the cases this week before they were actually argued, which is substantially better then I have been doing lately.
No. 02-337 Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard
Since I have been paying attention to the Supreme Court, I have come to understand that it schedules each week in a particular way. Cases that involve complex Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-917700182003-04-01T07:50:00.000-05:002003-04-01T07:50:23.593-05:00Yesterday's Decisions
For the second time this term, I predicted one correctly that Sam Heldman predicted incorrectly! The Court reversed in Archer v. Warner, and affirmed in Branch v. Smith. Both outcomes are as I had predicted. Sam predicted the Court would dismiss in the Branch case.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-917698292003-04-01T07:45:00.000-05:002003-04-01T07:45:24.843-05:00No. 02-241 Grutter v. Bollinger
No. 02-516 Gratz v. Bollinger
Here are the two University of Michigan cases. If you do not know what these cases are about then you must have been getting your Supreme Court news exclusively from this site, because every other place where you can find Supreme Court information has covered these cases extensively.They are about the use of affirmative action in the Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-917691452003-04-01T07:24:00.000-05:002003-04-01T07:24:26.343-05:00Catching up
I know there are hundreds ... wait, make that dozens ... okay, several people out there, who are dying to know, or at least mildly curious, or more probably indifferent toward the reasons that I haven't posted a prediction for last Tuesday's argument in No. 02-403 FEC v. Beaumont. There is really no reason. The case is about whether Congress may ban direct campaign contributions by Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-914152812003-03-26T10:24:00.000-05:002003-03-26T12:03:59.000-05:00Decision
The Court today held, in the Legal/Foundation/Washington (X2) case that the interest on lawyer's trust accounts (IOLTA) rules do not constitute an unconstitutional taking. This ruling comes as no surprise to Sam and I, who both correctly predicted the Court would AFFIRM.
Update: For reasons I haven't figured out yet, this case is now called Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington. TheTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-914141632003-03-26T10:03:00.000-05:002003-03-26T10:04:40.000-05:00No. 02-102 Lawrence v. Texas
The second case to be argued today is the challenge to Texas’ sodomy laws and to Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld Georgia’s anti-sodomy law. This is not, however, the same case as Bowers. Georgia’s anti-sodomy law was not specifically directed toward homosexual conduct, while Texas bans only “deviate sexual intercourse” with a person of the same sex. I think that Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-914135982003-03-26T09:52:00.000-05:002003-03-26T09:52:44.903-05:00A slew of predictions
I have gotten a little behind (again), so here are my predictions for yesterday’s and today’s oral arguments. I’ll start with today’s, because as I write this, it is still before oral argument.
No. 02-94 Overton v. Bazzetta
In this case, prisoners in facilities run by the Michigan Department of Corrections brought challenges to new visitation policies. The new policies, Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-913484622003-03-25T10:10:00.000-05:002003-03-25T10:10:29.140-05:00First (or close to it) again!
I may not yet have predictions for today's cases, but I do have today's decisions. The Court today reversed the decision in Woodford v. Garceau (as Sam and I agreed it would), and reversed in part, vacated in part, Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation. Sam predicted reverse, wherease I (alas) predicted the Court would affirm.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-912584732003-03-23T23:06:00.000-05:002003-03-23T23:06:35.110-05:00No. 01-10873 Nguyen v. United States
No. 02-5034 Phan v. United States
What am I missing? In these cases, petitioners complain that the appellate panel that heard their appeal contained a judge that was not appointed under Article III of the Constitution. The government’s brief agrees that the relevant statutory provisions do not allow such a designation, but disagrees that it raises some hugeTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-905977012003-03-12T12:51:00.000-05:002003-03-12T12:51:48.840-05:00Interesting article
Here is an interesting article about clerking for the Supreme Court. Thanks to the Greedy Clerks message board for the link.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-905217042003-03-11T09:13:00.000-05:002003-03-11T09:13:14.060-05:00I wonder
Whether news outlets feel bad when they get something completely wrong. For instance, the reports about the Fellers case (granted cert yesterday) that claim that the Court will "revisit[] it's landmark 1966 Miranda ruling." Having read the decision below, the cert petition, and the opposition, I can unequivocally say that the case will not revisit Miranda. Miranda warnings were given, Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-904593622003-03-10T10:14:00.000-05:002003-03-10T10:14:03.560-05:00Win one, lose one
For once, you may have heard it here first: The Court today affirmed in Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers (Sam and I predicted REVERSE), and also affirmed in Cook Co. v. U.S. (San and I predicted AFFIRM).Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-904357002003-03-09T23:06:00.000-05:002003-03-09T23:11:18.000-05:00Did I say later on today? I think my record of predicting what I will do is even worse than my record of predicting what the Court will do.
Here is the chart, updated through last week. There should be one or more opinions tomorrow, so it will be nearly instantaneously out-of-date.
Oh yeah, and the score is Ted: 15-12; Sam: 20-7
Ted
Sam
Actual Result
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-902470432003-03-06T12:15:00.000-05:002003-03-06T12:15:54.466-05:00Panel wins, I lose
Among the many predictions I made which have turned out to be incorrect in recent weeks was that the White Mountain Apache indian law case would be reversed. The day after the oral arguments, I attended a panel given by Georgetown University Law Center's Supreme Court Institute. The panel predicted that the White Mountain Apache case would be affirmed, but that the Navaho Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-902062312003-03-05T19:41:00.000-05:002003-03-05T19:41:38.246-05:00No. 02-196 National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Department of the Interior
Ok. I know that this is a day late. Two days late, considering that the intent was that predictions be made before the day of oral argument. I have no excuse. Nevertheless, I have not read anything about the oral arguments, so here is my prediction:
This case is about whether contracts entered into by the National Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-900763902003-03-03T18:28:00.000-05:002003-03-03T18:28:07.983-05:00No. 01-1806 Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc.
The second case argued today is about whether a state may bring a fraud action against a telemarketing company based on its failure to disclose that it keeps 85% of all donations. The main question here is over whether the amount of the telemarketer’s take is material to whether the solicitation was fraudulent.
In general, states may notTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-900730002003-03-03T17:23:00.000-05:002003-03-03T17:32:33.000-05:00I am back from taking the Virginia Bar. I hope all three or four of you out there reading this will pause at this point and offer a silent encouragement that the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners see fit to find that I displayed minimum competency to practice in the Commonwealth in my answers last Tuesday and Wednesday.
It is lucky that the Virginia Bar does not require accuracy in predicting theTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-891870292003-02-16T09:58:00.000-05:002003-02-16T09:59:22.000-05:00I also wrongly predicted FCC v. Nextwave. It turns out that you can bid way more than you can afford to get an FCC license, fail to make your payments, then prevent the FCC from taking the license back by declaring bankruptcy. Go figure.
Next week brings a bunch of cases, but since I am taking the Virginia bar in 9 days, the following are little more than guesses. Note these are in reverse Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-879748052003-01-24T15:57:00.000-05:002003-01-24T15:57:19.366-05:00Darn
I suppose I should have known better than to predict that the Court would affirm the 9th Circuit. On Wednesday, the Court vacated and remanded Meyer v. Holley, contrary to my prediction.
Ted 9-5
Sam 10-4Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-878253792003-01-22T00:32:00.000-05:002003-01-22T00:32:34.000-05:00No. 01-593 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson
No. 01-594 Dead Sea Bromine Co. v. Patrickson
First up for tomorrow (later on today actually) is an interesting case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. I would really love to go into the intricities of this, but it's already pretty late. Did I mention yet that I am studying for the bar and that it is, essentially, sheer Hell?I predict the CourtTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-877665532003-01-20T23:43:00.000-05:002003-01-20T23:44:16.000-05:00No. 01-1862 Woodford v. Garceau
Here we have a death penalty case where the question is whether the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) apply to a petitioner who had applied for an attorney and a motion for stay of execution in order to apply for habeas corpus, but who had not actually petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. AEDPA purports to exclude “casesTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-877005462003-01-19T19:23:00.000-05:002003-01-19T19:27:25.000-05:00Popup Test!
function openpopup(){
var popurl="http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog"
winpops=window.open(popurl,"","width=500,height=338,location,menubar,resizable,")
}
Click here for Goldstein Howe's blog.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-874866972003-01-15T13:25:00.000-05:002003-01-15T13:35:26.000-05:00All Tied Up
It appears that Sam and I are all tied up at 8-4 on the prediction game, since he correctly predicted Eldred and I did not (the Court affirmed today--Congress can extend copyrights forever), and becasue we both correctly predicted Barnhart v. Peabody Coal (the Court reversed--but I can't be as pithy. The Secretary of Social Security can make initial assignmnents of retirees to Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-874736362003-01-15T08:29:00.000-05:002003-01-15T08:29:51.810-05:00No. 01-1491 Denmore v. Kim
First up today, and when I say "today," I mean that the oral arguments are today (I'm late in predicting these cases, again) is a case dealing with the detention of potentially deportable immigrants. 8 U.S.C. 1226 requires that aliens, including permanent residents, who are convicted of specified crimes must be held without bail throughout the administrative removal Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-874240342003-01-14T11:47:00.000-05:002003-01-14T11:48:44.000-05:00The Court issued two opinions today.
In No. 01-1229, Pierce County v. Guillen, the Court held, 9-0, that 23 U.S.C. 409, which protects states that apply to the federal government for funds to improve highway safety from disclosure of information does not violate the commerce clause. Justice Thomas's opinion is available here. Both Sam Heldman and I predicted this case correctly.
In No. 01-Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-874009522003-01-13T23:53:00.000-05:002003-01-14T07:52:26.000-05:00No. 00-1471 Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans v. Miller
This case contains an acronym with which I hope never to become too familiar: ERISA. ERISA is a federal law that has something to do with employee benefit plans. I'm not sure what. What I do know is that at issue in this case is ERISA's provisions that preempt state-law regulation of plans covered by the act. Basically, Kentucky enacted a Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-873982182003-01-13T22:59:00.000-05:002003-01-14T07:53:24.000-05:00Today's arguments
My trip to the Court to see the arguments in Clay and Archer confirmed that my predictions below were correct. The Court will indeed reverse both cases. Tom did an excellent job arguing for Clay, as did Craig Goldblatt, a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where I will be a summer associate this year. This was Craig's first oral argument before the Court, and to my Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-873412162003-01-13T01:39:00.000-05:002003-01-13T01:39:26.703-05:00I can't believe
that I totally forgot to predict any cases this weekend. Maybe it's because I'm studying for the Virginia Bar; maybe it's because it's been so long since there have been any oral arguments; maybe I'm just forgetful. In any case:
No. 01-1500 Clay v. United States
This is easy. The question is whether the one-year period for filing a federal habeas petition for prisoners runs Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-861801762002-12-17T14:49:00.000-05:002002-12-17T14:49:43.240-05:00Oh yeah
The Court affirmed Borden Ranch v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by an equally-divided court yesterday, just as I predicted.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-861800632002-12-17T14:46:00.000-05:002002-12-17T14:50:39.000-05:00I filed my first Supreme Court brief last night
That is, at about 10:30 last night, I got out of the car and approached
the guard booth at the Supreme Court, where, after a bit of interrogation,
they allowed me to affix a "Received" sticker to three copies of a reply
brief in Clay v. United States
that I had helped prepare (mostly by cite checking and preparing part of the
table of Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-859109652002-12-12T15:53:00.000-05:002002-12-12T15:53:57.913-05:00Blog plug
Be sure to check out Statutory Construction Zone, a new blog dedicated to statutory construction in appellate decisions, including the Supreme Court.Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857955672002-12-10T14:16:00.000-05:002002-12-10T14:20:15.000-05:00 No. 01-1289 State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Campbell
The last case of the year has to do with constitutional limits on punitive damages. It began with a personal injury suit. The respondent, Campbell, was passing in the left hand lane when another car swerved to avoid him and hit another car, resulting in two deaths. Campbell was insured by State Farm, which refused to settle the case within the Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857894002002-12-10T11:54:00.000-05:002002-12-10T11:54:45.946-05:00On the other hand
The Court also handed down a decision reversing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., just as I (and Sam) predicted.
Finally, the court dismissed as improvidently granted Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, which I predicted it would not dismiss. Sam also predicted the Court would reach the merits. Although we predicted the substantive outcome differently, we both lose under my rules.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857887372002-12-10T11:40:00.000-05:002002-12-10T11:40:35.326-05:00Ouch!
The Court's decision in U.S. v. Bean came down today. Contrary to my prediction the Court reversed, 9-0. Sam Heldman also predicted the Court would affirm, so I think that means I'm 4-1 and he's 3-2 (according to my rules).
If you recall, I thought the case was about whether Congress may invalidate a law (allowing an exception to gun posession prohibition on felons) by refusing to fund aTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857802842002-12-10T08:17:00.000-05:002002-12-10T08:17:05.556-05:00No. 01-1107 Virginia v. Black
This case is a challenge to Virginia’s anti-cross-burning statute. The statute makes cross burning with intent to intimidate someone illegal, and further makes the cross-burning itself prima facie evidence of the intent to intimidate. The Supreme Court of Virginia found that the statute was unconstitutional.
The question in this case, I believe, boils down to Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857657162002-12-09T23:37:00.000-05:002002-12-09T23:44:52.000-05:00No. 01-1243 Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
This is an evironmental case involving "deep ripping" in wetlands. "Deep ripping," it appears, is a particularly destructive form of plowing. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decided that deep ripping in wetlands constitutes an activity for which one needs a permit under the Clean Water Act. The petitioner here was Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-857647902002-12-09T23:15:00.000-05:002002-12-09T23:19:10.000-05:00No. 01-1437 Branch v. Smith
No. 01-1596 Smith v. Branch
The reason I got into this whole Supreme Court prediction game was so that I would have at least a marginally-informed opinion about every case that came before the Court this term. Try as I might, however, I just can't get into this congresssional redistricting case. As I understand it (and I don't really) state legislatures are Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-856937082002-12-08T16:53:00.000-05:002002-12-08T16:53:52.000-05:00No. 01-1325 Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation of Washington
Although it has been stated many times, I must point out that despite the named parties, this is not a trademark case. The case is about whether states may require that interest paid on lawyers' trust accounts be donated to programs that pay for lawyers for indigent persons. All fifty states have some form of IOLTA (Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-856018542002-12-06T13:13:00.000-05:002002-12-06T13:13:29.946-05:00
No. 01-1209 Boeing Co. v. United States
No. 01-1382 United States v. Boeing Sales Co.
After reading the government’s brief opposing cert in 01-1209, I have one question. Scratch that, I have plenty of questions, but only one of them is important: How the heck did this get to the Court?
The case is about how Boeing may allocate research and development expenses under now-repealed sections ofTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854423482002-12-03T15:36:00.000-05:002002-12-03T15:36:16.440-05:00Blog re: blog
I don't usually pay too much attention to my web stats -- I figure that the fewer people that see this the better. I coudn't help noticing, however, that someone from Mercury Marine, the non-prevailing party in the Sprietsma case, visited this site today.
Sorry guys. Better luck next time.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854421242002-12-03T15:30:00.000-05:002003-03-06T11:23:51.000-05:00Indian Cases
I just attended a panel given by the Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court Institute on yesterday's Indian law cases. The panel, which was composed of a distinguished set of Indian law experts, predicted that the White Mountain Apache case would be affirmed (five experts agreeing and one abstention), in favor of the Tribe, and that the Navaho case would be reversed (four Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854361322002-12-03T13:22:00.000-05:002002-12-03T13:22:47.650-05:00Four for Four!
The Court's opinion in Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine came down today. The Court reversed the Illinois Supreme Court, just
as I predicted it would here.
Under my rules, I am ahead of Sam, with my record at 4-0 and his at 3-1.
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854344312002-12-03T12:35:00.000-05:002002-12-03T12:36:18.000-05:00This Week's List
Sam Heldman made it easy for me this week by predicting the Court will reverse every case.
TedSam
Monday, Dec. 2
U.S. v. White Mountain Apache TribeREVERSEREVERSE
U.S. v. Navajo NationREVERSEREVERSE
Tuesday, Dec. 3
Meyer v. HolleyAFFIRMREVERSE
Washington State Dept. Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship of Keffeler AFFIRMREVERSE
Wednesday, Dec. 4
Scheidler v. NOWOperation Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854341332002-12-03T12:27:00.000-05:002002-12-03T12:27:50.653-05:00No. 01-1444 Chavez v. Martinez
The question here is whether a police officer that conducts a coercive interrogation is entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983. What happened is this: The police shot the plaintiff in this case in the face, and then while he was being treated in the emergency room an officer interrogated him over his repeated objections that he was in pain and thought Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-854333892002-12-03T12:06:00.000-05:002002-12-03T12:08:41.000-05:00No. 01-1118 Scheidler v. NOW
No. 01-1119 Operation Rescue v. NOW
Here we have an abortion case that has nothing to do with abortion. At least, that is the way I predict that it will be decided. This case has apparently been in litigation for 15 years and has already been to the Supreme Court once. Basically, the National Organization for Women sued abortion protestors under RICO, seeking to Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-853747912002-12-02T08:21:00.000-05:002002-12-02T08:24:44.000-05:00No. 01-1420 Washington State Dept. Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship of Keffeler
Here is an interesting case about the allocation of Social Security benefits to children in foster care. Children can receive Social Security benefits because of a disability or because of dependence on a disabled worker who is or was eligible for Social Security payments. The Social Security Administration mayTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-853377152002-12-01T13:25:00.000-05:002002-12-01T13:55:49.000-05:00No. 01-1120 Meyer v. Holley
Here we have a case with unmistakable good guys and bad guys. Unfortunately, the really bad guy isn't before the Court. The respondents in this case include a mixed-race couple who wanted to buy a house and a builder who wanted to sell it to them. Unfortunately, between these parties was an evil real estate agent who just didn't want the Holleys to find a home. Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-853365012002-12-01T12:45:00.000-05:002002-12-01T12:45:20.940-05:00No. 01-1375 United States v. Navajo Nation
Thanks to Sam Heldman to point out the "something" that I found "missing" from the lower court's ruling in U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, discussed below. While I thought that the lower court's reasoning as to trust law seemed solid, what was missing was a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, which is necessary in order that the Tribe may sue the Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-847815372002-11-19T16:53:00.000-05:002002-11-19T16:53:59.066-05:00No. 01-1067 United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
Monday, December 2, a mere four days after Thanksgiving, is the day for Indian cases at the Supreme Court. First up is U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe. In this case, the government operated a school for Indians on the former military site, Fort Apache, on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona. In 1960, Congress passed an actTedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-847759022002-11-19T14:51:00.000-05:002002-11-19T14:51:40.176-05:00In your spare time
All you Supreme Court junkies who haven't already seen the profiles of the Justices on C-SPAN's show, "America and the Courts" can find those episodes archived online here. The links are on the right hand side of the page. Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3794887.post-844296112002-11-12T14:05:00.000-05:002002-12-02T09:10:13.000-05:00He's at it again
Sean Carter, the originator of the Fantasy Supreme Court League, has come up with a new Supreme Court-based contest. This time, it's the Most Valuable Justice Contest. This contest is fascinating. Each participant chooses a Justice and is awarded points based on that Justice's participation in and opinions in cases that are handed down. The points are awarded as follows:
Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06242369916165248608noreply@blogger.com