Recent Decisions
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (May 23, 2022)
Because the usual federal rule concerning waiver does not include a prejudice requirement, prejudice is not a condition of finding that a party waived its right to stay litigation or compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (May 23, 2022)
A federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.
Patel v. Garland (May 16, 2022)
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings concerning removal or adjustment of immigration status.
Federal Election Commission v. Cruz (May 16, 2022)
Limitations on repayment of a candidate's loans to his campaign committee, imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, unconstitutionally burden political speech.
Shurtleff v. Boston (May 2, 2022)
Boston's policy of allowing groups to raise flags on City Hall Plaza without regard to the message on any flag indicates that the flag-raising program does not express government speech so Boston’s refusal to let a Christian group fly its flag violated the Free Speech Clause.
Latest Supreme Court News
Steps We Can Take to Reduce Gun Violence
The New York Times,
Readers react to the president’s speech and suggest smart guns, gun liability, age restrictions and a ban on assault weapons. Also: The Depp-Heard verdict; a Supreme Court ruling; diplomacy to end the war.
To Cut Gas Prices, Congress Should Allow the U.S. to Sue OPEC
The New York Times,
Congress should allow the Justice Department to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws.
Middle-Ground Possibilities in Dobbs? A Few Arguments From “Political Reliance”
Justia's Verdict,
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar describes a few (albeit unlikely) ways in which the Supreme Court could more moderately rule in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., rather than outright striking down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which a majority seems poised to do), or upholding them (which three Justices almost certainly support). Dean Amar explains the doctrine of “political reliance” and how it could lead the Court either to “return” the abortion question to the states to legislate (rather than having unenforced pre-Roe statutes to spring back to life), or to “sunset” the abortion right, giving the public time to account for the change in law.
The Court Seems Poised to Decide Soon Whether to Take Up the “Independent-State-Legislature” (ISL) Notion and (Hopefully) its Textual Nuances
Justia's Verdict,
In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court likely deciding soon to review a case presenting the question of the legitimacy of the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL), Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar explains why the theory necessarily fails unless its proponents make up the meaning of Article II of the Constitution without regard to its words or historical context. Dean Amar argues that the notion of ISL does not work for Article I or Article II, but it certainly does not work for Article II under the textual approach employed by its proponents.
Courts may not “make up” new procedural rules to favor arbitration
SCOTUSblog,
In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has insisted that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to put arbitration contracts on “equal footing” with other kinds of contracts. These decisions have often favored companies seeking to enforce arbitration agreements, rejecting rules that give employees... The post Courts may not “make up” new procedural rules to favor arbitration appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Press Release
Supreme Court of the United States,
Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement: To the extent this betrayal...
Current Supreme Court Justices
Chief Justice of the United States
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Photos of the justices courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
