65 share
40 is our goal
Very strong interest
PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
13-435 Omnicare, Inc., et. al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al.
May a plaintiff plead that a statement of opinion was "untrue" merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false-requiring allegations that the speaker's actual opinion was different from the one expressed-as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held?
May a plaintiff plead that a statement of opinion was "untrue" merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false-requiring allegations that the speaker's actual opinion was different from the one expressed-as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held?
13-534 North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC
May, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants?
May, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants?
13-604 Heien v. North Carolina
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
13-719 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC v. Brandon W. Owens
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
13-895 and 13-1138 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference, et al., v. The State of Alabama, et al.
(13-895)Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-895)Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-1138)
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(b). Whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim?
- Brief for Anti-Defamation League in Support of Appellants
- Brief for the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law in Support of Appellants
- Brief for NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., in Support of Appellants
- Brief for North Carolina Litigants in Support of Appellants
- Brief for Professors Ronald Keith Gaddie, Charles S. Bullock, III, and Stephen Ansolabehere in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for the United States in Support of Neither Party
13-975 T-Mobile South v. Roswell, Georgia
May a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but providing no reasons whatsoever for the denial, satisfy this statutory "in writing" requirement?
May a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but providing no reasons whatsoever for the denial, satisfy this statutory "in writing" requirement?
13-983 Elonis v. United States
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
- Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression, the Cato Institute, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and the National Coalition Against Censorship, in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Center for Individual Rights in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA), Carol Crossed, Chris Coatney, Daniel Miller, Operation Rescue, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, Pro-Life Action League, Inc., Missionaries to the Preborn, Defend Life, Survivors, Pro-Life Action Ministries, and Votelife America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Nine Media Organizations, in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute, in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Student Press Law Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Pen American Center in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, Cartoonists Rights Network International, and Chris Dickey in Support of Petitioner
13-1080 Department of Transporation v. Association of American Railroads
Does section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 effect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity?
Does section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 effect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity?
13-6827 Holt v. Hobbs
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
13-7120 Johnson v. United States
Should mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun be treated as a violent felony under the armed career criminal act?
Should mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun be treated as a violent felony under the armed career criminal act?
- Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and International Brotherhood of Police Officers in Support of the Respondent
- Brief for Law Professors in Support of Respondent
Justice Antonin Scalia presented Henry Lee McCollum as a perfect example: Scalia said his heinous crimes justify the entire system of capital punishment.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, a judge ordered McCollum's release, he was innocent all along... proven by DNA evidence.
When McCollum’s own case came before the high court, Scalia voted not to hear it.
30 years in prison and innocent ... (of course, he is black).
This is level of judgement we get from conservative justices.
As to your comment, I say "So what?" Scalia is unqualified to judge along with all other judges in this nation who had a legal opinion as to McCollium including the judge who actually conducted McCollium's trial???? Is this your point???? You think only black men have been falsely accused???
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that McCollium confessed to the crime 30 years ago. Did he do the crime. Absolutely not. Is this reversal a good thing? YES. Was the prosecutor in 1983 a Southern Democrat? Oh yeah. Was the judge granting McCollium and a second man their freedom, a conservative white guy? Oh yeah. Understand that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, not just Scalia.
All of this is part of why I am opposed to the death penalty except in the most extreme cases. Several years ago, nearly half the men on death row, in Illinois, 11 men, were exonerated via DNA. The system is not fair, but it fails poor people, not black people per se. Look at OJ Simpson. He had the bucks to get away with murder and he is black. This is, also, why I oppose harsh penalties for drug possession that does not include drug dealing.