We’re back with the lone decision from this week, Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Board of Elections (No. 15-680), one of two racial gerrymandering cases argued on the same day back in December. (Interestingly, the other case, McCrory v. Harris (15-1262), remains undecided, despite raising similar issues.)
Following the 2010 census, the Virginia legislature engaged in redistricting in order to ensure proper numerical apportionment for
Read More Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Board of Elections (15-680)
Last time we hit your inboxes, Barack Obama was President. To call the ensuing month eventful is something of an understatement. We’ve seen a primetime Supreme Court nomination, a flood of litigation challenging hastily conceived Executive Orders, and most recently the rescinding of a Department of Education policy on transgender rights that’s at the heart of a case pending before the Court this term. And
Read More Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. (14-1538), Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (15-497), Buck v. Davis (15-8049) and Order List
For those of you who spent the last six months (since cert was granted in Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. (No. 14-1055)) just dying to know whether the sue-and-be-sued clause in Fannie Mae’s charter grants federal courts jurisdiction over all suits involving the mortgage giant, have we got a treat for you: No. That’s the answer the Court provided in its lone decision yesterday,
Read More Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. (14-1055)
And Happy New Year! Yes, most of us kicked off 2017 over a week ago, but The Eight reassembled for the new (calendar) year yesterday, and rang it in with a summary reversal. We’ll cover that decision and a late-breaking stay order in a case involving racial gerrymandering in North Carolina below.
White v. Pauly (No. 16-67) repeats a familiar complaint among the Justices: that
Read More White v. Pauly (16-67)
The Eight continue to churn out unanimous decisions to start the Term. This Update will cover four of them—Salman v. United States (No. 15-628), clarifying the “personal benefit” element of insider-trading law; Shaw v. United States (No. 15-5991), clarifying that the bank fraud statute applies even when a defendant seeks only to deplete a particular depositor’s account; Samsung Electronics v. Apple (15-777),
Read More Salman v. United States (15-628), Shaw v. United States (15-5991), Samsung Electronics v. Apple (15-777), State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby (5-513) and Order ListThe Court issued its first signed opinion of the term this week, a unanimous decision in Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (15-537) holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the Government from retrying a defendant after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal, and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency. Scratching your heads? We’ll
Read More Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (15-537) and Order List