Earlier this week, the Court announced that it would be issuing some decisions on Wednesday, notwithstanding that the Nine are currently on their winter break. That led many observers to speculate that something big was in store—maybe a decision in the pending ACA case—because (in non-pandemic years) the Court would typically only release a decision mid-break if the case were time-sensitive and high-profile. Most of
Read More Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (No. 19-351), Simon v. Republic of Hungary (No. 18-1447), Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (No. 19-199)
City of Chicago v. Fulton (No. 19-357)
With the imminent inauguration of a new President and the mob attack on Congress dominating the news in recent weeks, the third branch continued humming along in the background. Late last week, the Court issued its sixth signed opinion of the term, in a low-profile bankruptcy case. The Court also added 14(!) new cases to its docket, but it has left several high-profile cert petitions
Read More City of Chicago v. Fulton (No. 19-357)Trump v. New York (No. 20-366)
On Friday, the Court issued its much (but only briefly) awaited decision in Trump v. New York (No. 20-366), rejecting (for now) a challenge to the Trump administration’s recently announced policy of trying to exclude those without lawful immigration status from the upcoming census. If that gives you a bit of déjà vu, it’s probably because you’re recalling the similarly captioned Department of Commerce
Read More Trump v. New York (No. 20-366)Tanzin v. Tanvir (No. 19-71); Carney v. Adams (No. 19-309); United States v. Briggs (No. 19-108); Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (No. 18-540)
It was a big week for the Update. On Monday, we went to Washington (over an analog phone line) to assist Appellate Group head Jonathan Freiman with his oral argument in Republic of Germany v. Philipp (No. 19-351). Click here for audio! (We swear, that’s Justice Breyer opening a bag of chips at the 6:40 mark, not Jonathan.) And it only got more exciting from
Read More Tanzin v. Tanvir (No. 19-71); Carney v. Adams (No. 19-309); United States v. Briggs (No. 19-108); Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (No. 18-540)Taylor v. Riojas (No. 19-1261), Mckesson v. Doe (No. 19-1108), Merrill v. People First of Alabama (No. 20A67)
And Happy Election Day! No doubt, there may be other things on your mind this evening, but if you’re looking for a diversion as the results trickle in, you’re in luck, as we’ve got the first two opinions of the term to share with you! And in case you’re not looking for a diversion, you’re still in luck, as we’ve also got a round-up of
Read More Taylor v. Riojas (No. 19-1261), Mckesson v. Doe (No. 19-1108), Merrill v. People First of Alabama (No. 20A67)OT20
It’s the first Monday of October, which means we’re back for another term of Court-tracking. Of course, OT20 is not just another term. We begin short-handed, following the death of the inimitable Justice Ginsburg just over two weeks ago. The effort to replace her—or forestall her replacement—during the final weeks of a presidential campaign promises to command virtually all of the public attention on the
Read More OT20