“Supreme Court Rules for Bush Officials in Post-9/11 Suit”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “High court: U.S. officials can’t be held liable for alleged unconstitutional treatment of noncitizens.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Top Court Drops Suit Filed by Immigrants Imprisoned After Sept. 11; Justice Breyer dissents, saying citizens during war have at times been deprived of basic rights by the government.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court bails out Bush officials over 9/11 detentions.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court sides with officials sued over post-Sept. 11 detentions.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sept. 11 Detention Lawsuit Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court.”
Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court rules Ashcroft, Mueller cannot be held accountable for post-9/11 immigration detainee claims.”
At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Justice Department officials get immunity for 9/11 response.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules Post-9/11 Detainees Can’t Sue Top U.S. Officials.”
And in commentary, at the “Just Security” blog, Steve Vladeck has a post titled “On Justice Kennedy’s Flawed and Depressing Narrowing of Constitutional Damages Remedies.”
“Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Invalidates N.C. Law Barring Sex Offenders from Social Media; In unanimous opinion, Justice Kennedy says internet platforms have become key for communication, information access.”
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court suggests constitutional right to Facebook, other social media.”
Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sex-Offender Social Media Ban Thrown Out by U.S. High Court.”
The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban.”
Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders.”
David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “There’s a constitutional right to use social media, Supreme Court says; North Carolina’s law was ‘unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech.’”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down State Ban On Registered Sex Offender Social Media Use.”
Andy Duehren of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rules.”
And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Supreme Court gives Internet broad new protections.”
“Supreme Court Doesn’t Care What You Say on the Internet; Two free-speech rulings combine to make clear that any social media regulation will have to come from the companies themselves.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“High court blocks plaintiffs from outside California in drug suit”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
“Supreme Court rules for death row prisoner seeking mental health defense”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Alabama Death Row Inmate; In a 5-4 decision, the court finds state failed to provide a murder defendant with a psychiatric expert who could contribute adequately to his defense.”
And Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “U.S. Supreme Court orders new hearing in Alabama death row inmate’s case.”
“U.S. Supreme Court and top patent court rarely see eye to eye”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.
“DOJ walks narrow path on agency deference in big SCOTUS employment case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“U.S. Supreme Court reinstates convicted Cleveland killer’s death sentence”: Cory Shaffer of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.
“Dodging Insanity: The Supreme Court doesn’t know how the justice system should deal with mental illness.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Mistrial declared in talcum powder suit after U.S. Supreme Court limits where companies can be sued”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: A clash of laws.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“The Supreme Court’s Ominous National Security Ruling: The verdict could have significant implications for the case testing the Trump administration’s ‘travel ban’ barring entry of persons from six majority-Muslim countries.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Liberals Hope To Take Down Trump’s Judicial Nominee With A Controversial Blogging Past”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Justice Kennedy’s Beauty Pageant: Challengers are parading different standards before the U.S. Supreme Court justice, trying to offer a definition of partisan gerrymandering he’ll find acceptable.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Conversation with Associate Dean Alan Morrison”: The American Constitution Society recently posted this video on YouTube.
“A New Way of Defining Oral Argument Terrain”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Companies Get New Suit Limits as Supreme Court Backs Bristol-Myers”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court again limits where companies can be sued.”
And The Associated Press reports that “High court sides with drugmaker in Plavix lawsuit.”
“U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Alabama death row inmate”: Ivana Hrynkiw of AL.com has this report.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of Alabama death row inmate.”
And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Alabama death row inmate.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in five argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in large measure in Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., No. 16-466. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Thomas and Neil M. Goruch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
5. And Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in large measure in Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were recused, and Justice Gorsuch did not participate. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. Via a “Jurisdiction Postponed” order, the Court agreed to hear one direct appeal on the merits. In addition, the Court called for the views of the Acting Solicitor General in one case.
Lastly, in Jenkins v. Hutton, No. 16-1116, the Court issued a unanimous per curiam decision summarily reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“On Death Row, but Is He Innocent?” Columnist Nicholas Kristof had this op-ed in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Get Ready To Start Hearing About The Travel Ban Again”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“OT2016 #25: ‘Little Longer in the Oven.'” You can access this week’s new episode of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, via this link.
