“Court resuscitates Palestinians’ genocide case against Adelson in U.S.; The $34.5 billion case was previously dismissed by the lower US district court for the District of Columbia”: Yonah Jeremy Bob of The Jerusalem Post has this report.
Ari Feldman of The Forward reports that “Palestinian Lawsuit Alleging Genocidal Plot From Adelson And Other Mega-Donors Revived.”
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Palestinians’ lawsuit in U.S. vs. Adelson, others is revived.”
And Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “Court Says Adelson, Israeli Banks Must Defend Palestinians’ U.S. Suit.”
You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Trump is trashing the Constitution. Larry Hogan shows how Republicans should respond.” Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“The Supreme Court just took a small step toward redressing a big constitutional outrage”: This editorial appears online at The Washington Post.
“Justices Against Unjust Forfeiture: The Supreme Court says state seizures can violate the Constitution.” This editorial will appear in Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Laura Bush, Sally Field and a Supreme Court justice will headline the upcoming Bryan Series season”: John Newsom of The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina has an article that begins, “Former first lady Laura Bush and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will lead off the next season of the Guilford College Bryan Series.”
“Trump’s attacks on the First Amendment and the press gain an ally in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Thomas penned a concerning opinion encouraging his colleagues to revisit the landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan”: Law professor Steve Vladeck has this essay online at NBC News.
“Today’s Law-School Graduates Can’t Speak the New Supreme Court’s Language: Originalism and textualism dominate the Supreme Court but are foreign to the legal academy.” Nicholas M. Gallagher has this essay online at National Review.
To the extent that this essay is arguing that originalism and textualism are not being taught at good law schools, the essay does not comport with what I am hearing and seeing. And to the extent the essay asks why Josh Blackman works at the South Texas College of Law Houston “rather than at a top-ten school,” many possible answers exist other than the legal academy’s supposed anti-conservative bias.
“Bill Cosby thanks Supreme Court for declining to take up woman’s defamation lawsuit”: Travis Andersen of The Boston Globe has this report.
“The strategic discretion of John Roberts”: Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Kim Reynolds names appeals court judge Christopher McDonald to Iowa Supreme Court”: Stephen Gruber-Miller of The Des Moines Register has this report.
And Erin Murphy of The Quad-City Times reports that “First minority member named to Iowa Supreme Court.”
“The Supreme Court Just Struck a Huge, Unanimous Blow Against Policing for Profit”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Florida Student, 11, Arrested After Dispute Over His Refusal to Say Pledge of Allegiance”: Christine Hauser and Matthew Haag of The New York Times have this report.
“Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says constitutional ban on ‘excessive fines’ also applies to states.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Against Excessive State Fines; The ruling potentially jeopardizes asset-forfeiture programs that help fund police programs.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeitures.”
Tim Evans of The Indianapolis Star has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court: Range Rover seizure violated protections against excessive fines.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Constitutional ban on high fines applies to states.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on ‘excessive fines.’”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Curbs State Power to Levy Fines, Seize Property.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller’s luxury SUV; The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose Land Rover was taken away after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin to undercover officers.”
Ariane de Vogue and Sophie Tatum of CNN report that “Ginsburg delivers first opinion since cancer surgery in excessive fines case.”
And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court clamps down on ‘excessive fines’ by states.”
“Supreme Court won’t head off former Rep. Schock’s trial”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.
“Trump shouldn’t be forcing Republicans to choose fidelity to him or to the Constitution”: Columnist Marc A. Thiessen has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
“‘Enjoy your life’: Trump puts new attorney general in an awkward position from the start.” Philip Rucker and Matt Zapotosky have this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
“Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
“#212: Tweeting Judges & Access to Justice, with Judge Stephen Dillard.” Today’s new installment of the Lawyerist Podcast can be accessed via this link.
All about Chadha: Soon, I’ll be escaping from the snowy northeast to visit St. Augustine, Florida, a place that’s famous for (among other things) Minorcan clam chowder (I’m looking forward to having some at O’Steen’s). But this post isn’t about chowder; rather, it’s about INS v. Chada.
The New York Sun has posted online an editorial titled “The Constitutional Emergency.”
And at the “Lawfare” blog, Richard H. Pildes has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Contribution to the Confrontation Over Emergency Powers.”
“Justice Ginsburg Appears Strong In First Appearance At Supreme Court This Year”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.
1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Dawson v. Steager, No. 17-419. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091. Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
