How Appealing



Tuesday, March 19, 2019

“Supreme Court: Navy product manufacturers liable for asbestos exposure in sailors’ deaths.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Posted at 11:09 PM by Howard Bashman



“Immigrants Facing Deportation Must Be Detained After Release From Criminal Custody, Justices Rule”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says government has broad authority when detaining some immigrants.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds federal power to detain and deport immigrants for long-past crimes.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Approves Mandatory Detention of Some Immigrants During Deportation Hearings; Decision requires authorities to detain aliens facing deportation at any point following release from prison for range of offenses.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Divided Supreme Court makes it easier to detain noncitizens with criminal records.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds ICE detention without bail for serious criminals.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Trump gets a U.S. Supreme Court victory on immigration detention.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Trump Administration in Deportation Case.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with Trump in immigrant detention dispute.”

In commentary, Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Another Ninth Circuit Reversal: The Supreme Court sides with Congress on criminal alien detention.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Supreme Court Disregards Due Process, Allows ICE to Detain Certain Immigrants Indefinitely.”

Posted at 11:04 PM by Howard Bashman



“Appeals Court Judges Appear Skeptical of Emoluments Case Against Trump”: Sharon LaFraniere of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell of The Washington Post report that “Judges seem skeptical Trump is illegally profiting from his D.C. hotel.”

Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Under sharp questioning, Maryland tries to sustain suit over Trump business dealings.”

Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Judges grill lawyers in suit over Trump’s Washington hotel.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Judges lean toward Trump in hotel ’emoluments’ case.”

Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Emoluments Challengers Face Skeptical Appeals Court Panel.”

Ellie Kaufman of CNN reports that “DC attorney general says he’ll fight Trump hotel case to Supreme Court.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Lawsuit accusing Trump of violating Constitution gets hostile reception.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Justice Department And Trump’s Lawyers Argue No One Should Be Able To Sue Him For Profiting From His Hotel.”

And Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fourth Circuit Appears Skeptical of Trump Emoluments Case.”

Today, these two related appeals were argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Senior Circuit Judge Dennis W. Shedd. You can access the oral argument audio here and here.

Posted at 9:30 PM by Howard Bashman



“The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court”: Fred Barbash and Deanna Paul of The Washington Post have an article that begins, “Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.”

Posted at 8:02 PM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Weighs Race Challenge to Virginia Voting Map”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court divided over Virginia redistricting case and question of racial discrimination.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seems divided on Virginia’s use of race to draw election districts.”

In today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Graham Moomaw has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears Virginia redistricting case, with control of House of Delegates at stake.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court struggles with Virginia redistricting case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs Virginia racial dispute over electoral maps.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court takes on racial gerrymander claim in Virginia.”

And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The fate of one of America’s worst gerrymanders appears to rest in Clarence Thomas’ hands; It’s strange bedfellows day at the Supreme Court of the United States.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, No. 18-281.

Posted at 7:58 PM by Howard Bashman



Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in various respects in Nielsen v. Preap, No. 16-1363. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined, in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined. And Justice Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link. Note: In the version of this decision that the Supreme Court originally posted online, Justice Breyer’s opinion is identified internally in the document as the “Opinion of the Court,” which is incorrect. Presumably this will be corrected before long.

Posted at 10:03 AM by Howard Bashman