“Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas in Supreme Court Ethics Inquiry; The decision to try to compel cooperation from a leading judicial activist and a Republican megadonor came over fierce G.O.P. opposition and threats of retaliation”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.
Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Democrats vote to subpoena Supreme Court conservative allies Crow, Leo.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Senate Committee to Subpoena Supreme Court Justices’ Conservative Benefactors; Democrats seek records from billionaire Harlan Crow, ex-Federalist Society head Leonard Leo.”
Riley Beggin and John Fritze of USA Today report that “Senate Democrats vote to subpoena Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo in Supreme Court ethics probe as GOP storms out; Republicans on the panel slammed the move as political theater and accused the 11 Democrats of violating committee rules.”
And in commentary, Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Senate’s Supreme Court Subpoena Games; Democrats bulldoze the rules in order to tarnish conservative Justices and their friends.”
“Pennsylvania Tied Vote Decided By Drawing of Lots after Court Ruling that Undated But Timely-Arriving Mail Ballots Had to Be Counted under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”
And in other coverage, Dan Sokil and Rachel Ravina of The Reporter of Lansdale, Pennsylvania have an article headlined “Towamencin winner declared: NOPE founder Kofi Osei beats incumbent Supervisor Rich Marino in drawing of lots; Tied Upper Perkiomen School Board race also determined by drawing.”
“Firearms Control: It’s Time for a Common-Sense Bargain; Trading an assault weapons ban for reducing federal police presence.” Online at The American Spectator, George Liebmann has an essay that begins, “The last 50 years have confirmed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s warning against a Supreme Court interference on abortion and gun control measures.”
“Senate Judiciary Committee authorizes subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo in Supreme Court ethics probe”: Melissa Quinn of CBS News has this report.
“My Bit Role in Ashcroft Hospital Saga; ‘You might have just saved this presidency’”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.
“Pandemonium in Senate Judiciary Committee as Dems prepare to take up SCOTUS ethics subpoenas; Republicans, accusing their colleagues of undertaking a political exercise, derailed a committee meeting before lawmakers could even begin to debate a pair of legal summonses for influential conservative figures”: Benjamin S. Weiss of Courthouse News Service has this report.
John Kruzel and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “US Senate Democrats prepare to vote on Supreme Court ethics subpoenas.”
“A MAGA court in New Orleans is shaping the Supreme Court’s agenda; The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals makes SCOTUS look moderate by comparison”: Steven Mazie will have this article (subscription required for full access) in the next print edition of The Economist.
“The Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct: enforcement confusion, extrajudicial activism.” Russell Wheeler has this essay online at The Brookings Institution.
And online at The New Republic, Simon Lazarus has an essay titled “Liberals Are Wrong to Trash the Supreme Court’s New Code of Ethics; The high court’s new guidelines have come in for a lot of criticism, but they’re the perfect platform for reformers to keep applying pressure.”
“Texas Booksellers Warn Fifth Circuit on Sex-Content Rating Law; Texas law requires sellers to rate sex content of books in schools; State argues case was brought too early”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.
And Cameron Langford of Courthouse News Service reports that “Booksellers assail Texas bill restricting school library books at Fifth Circuit; Vendors claim a new state law will force them to forfeit their First Amendment rights to continue selling books to Texas schools.”
You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“Court filing reveals Rep. Scott Perry’s vast web of contacts in bid to reverse 2020 election; A federal appeals court on Wednesday released previously secret text messages from Perry — only to remove them from the public docket later in the day”: Kyle Cheney of Politico has this report.
“Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals; The justices heard arguments over whether the Constitution allows the agency to pursue enforcement actions before its own judges instead of in federal courts”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court conservatives seem dubious about SEC’s in-house tribunals.”
Jess Bravin and Dave Michaels of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Looks Poised to Curb SEC Enforcement Powers; Ruling on agency’s in-house court system could clear way for attacks on similar executive-branch bodies.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court signals support for hedge fund manager who wants to gut SEC enforcement.”
Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Review of agency adjudication leaves Supreme Court with a puzzle; The Supreme Court found a problem but no solution in its review of how federal agencies enforce laws.”
At his Substack site, Chris Geidner has a post titled “The SEC case is really about Congress’s power to let agencies address today’s problems; Justice Sam Alito, compromise-maker?”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Has Figured Out How to Gut a Bunch of Crucial Federal Laws at Once.”
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court seeks a middle path between following the law and blowing up the government; SEC v. Jarkesy is still likely to end in a 6-3 decision against the federal government; But it probably won’t be a catastrophic loss.”
“‘A Titanic Decision’: Pa. Supreme Court’s Ruling Makes Venue Challenges Harder; Daniel Cummins, managing partner of Cummins Law, called the ruling, ‘another victory for the plaintiff bar at the appellate court level in Pennsylvania.’” Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.
“A Rando Trump Judge Just Blew a Giant Hole in the Voting Rights Act; In a shocking decision, Judge David Stras joined with fellow GOP appointee Raymond Gruender to make the VRA virtually unenforceable in seven states”: Elie Mystal has this essay online at The Nation.
“Judgment Preservation Insurance and the Federal Circuit”: Jonathan Stroud and Sam Korte have this guest post at the “Patently-O” blog.
“5th Circuit Will Hear Galveston Redistricting Lawsuit En Banc, Offering Another Chance to Weaken the Voting Rights Act”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” about an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.
New “SCOTUSblog” feature titled “Advocates in Conversation”: Today a new “SCOTUSblog” feature has made its debut. The first two installments are videos titled “Jaime Santos makes her debut” and “Rick Simpson on double jeopardy.”
Noting California’s equivalent of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute for cases heading to oral argument before the Supreme Court of California: Many readers of this blog are no doubt aware that Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute is an invaluable resource for attorneys who are preparing to argue a case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
While I was in D.C. earlier this month attending the 2023 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit, I learned that a similar resource is available for attorneys who are preparing to argue a case before the Supreme Court of California.
Attorney Leah Spero, who serves as director of the California Appellate Advocacy Program and the UC Law Appellate Project at UC Law San Francisco, sent me an email explaining the program as follows:
The California Appellate Advocacy Program at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings) offers moots to any attorney who will be arguing a civil case before the California Supreme Court. Only one party is mooted in each case, and the first attorney to respond to the program’s invitation is given the moot. The program is intended to maximize effective oral argument at the California Supreme Court by helping attorneys refine their arguments and, for those who are new to the Court, by giving them a sense of what to expect. The moots are offered free of charge, as a service to the legal community and in keeping with the educational mission and strong moot court tradition of UC Law SF.
You can learn more about the program via this link.
“Pa. Supreme Court rules companies can be sued in a given forum, no matter the percentage of its business done there”: Nicholas Malfitano of Pennsylvania Record has this report.
“Ohio attorney suspended over pooping in a Pringles can, leaving it in parking lot; The Ohio Supreme Court suspended an attorney for defecating into a Pringles can and dropping it in a parking lot of a crime-victim advocacy center”: Laura A. Bischoff of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.
And Dan Trevas of Court News Ohio reports that “Lawyer Suspended for Tossing Feces-Filled Pringles Can.”
You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link.
“Subpoenaing Friends Of SCOTUS Justices Will Immediately Backfire On Senate Democrats”: Mark Paoletta has this post online at The Federalist.
“Supreme Court to confront post-Roe abortion battles”: Zach Schonfeld of The Hill has this report.
“Supreme Court raises concerns with federal government agencies’ penalties versus right to jury trial”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
Andrew Chung and John Kruzel of Reuters report that “US Supreme Court signals it could limit SEC in-house enforcement.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “SEC’s Use of In-House Judges Cast in Doubt by Supreme Court.”
“Former Florida lawmaker makes case that Donna Adelson should be released from jail”: Benjamin Graber, M.D. has this essay online at The Tallahassee Democrat.
“An unusually high-spirited day at the Supreme Court. (Laughter.) In cases over the Double Jeopardy Clause and review of deportation decisions, Georgia and DOJ are likely to lose. But also, a possibility of something more.” Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.
“SEC’s in-house enforcement powers at risk in US Supreme Court case”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Ex-Hedge Fund Boss Fights SEC at Supreme Court With Big Backers; George Jarkesy is challenging the SEC’s use of in-house judges; SEC uses administrative judges for hundreds of cases each year.”
In commentary, online at Slate, Alan B. Morrison has a Jurisprudence essay titled “One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Could Also Be the Most Devastating.”
Online at The Atlantic, law professor Noah Rosenblum has an essay titled “The Case That Could Destroy the Government; What was once a fringe legal theory now stands a real chance of being adopted by the Supreme Court.”
And at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation, Christopher J. Walker has a post titled “The Remedy in SEC v. Jarkesy.”
“Supreme Court questions Ga. decision to retry suspect after acquittal; Justices examine case where jury found a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity on one of three charges but convicted on two others”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
And in commentary, online at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has a post titled “Supreme Court Seems Uninterested In Georgia’s Argument That ‘Verdicts’ Aren’t ‘Verdicts’; The justices permit a lot of abuse of criminal defendants; But McElrath v. Georgia might be the proverbial bridge too far.”
“Group Tied to Supreme Court Patron Leo Pours $103 Million Into Conservative Causes; 85 Fund increased funding by more than 33% since 2021; The group gave $2.3 million to the Federalist Society”: Emily Birnbaum of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Texas Supreme Court appears hesitant to clarify emergency exception in state’s abortion ban”: Taylor Goldenstein of The Houston Chronicle has this report.
Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Texas Supreme Court takes up judge’s temporary order easing abortion restrictions.”
Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas Supreme Court considers abortion challenge; In August, a judge ruled that the state’s near-total abortion ban should not apply to medically complicated pregnancies; The state appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, putting it on hold.”
Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that “Texas top court weighs scope of abortion ban exception for risky pregnancies.”
Ryan Autullo of Bloomberg Law reports that “Abortion Ban Exceptions Split Texas Supreme Court Justices; Eight Republican justices offered mixed signals; AG suggested the proper defendants are physicians.”
And Kirk McDaniel of Courthouse News Service reports that “Medical exceptions for abortions in Texas probed by state’s highest court; ‘While there is technically a medical exemption to the bans, no one knows what it means and the state will not tell us,’ attorney Molly Duane told the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday.”
The Supreme Court of Texas has posted the audio of today’s oral argument on YouTube at this link.
Update: In other coverage, Bayliss Wagner of The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Texas Supreme Court heavily scrutinizes both sides in case challenging abortion bans.”
“Should Pa. courts be allowed to intervene in the impeachment drive against Philly DA Larry Krasner? The state Supreme Court questioned whether courts should be allowed to effectively strike down an impeachment approved by the state House, or if it should be resolved at a trial in the Senate.” Chris Palmer and Gillian McGoldrick of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has posted the audio of today’s four-hour oral argument on YouTube at this link.
Update: In other coverage, Peter Hall of Pennsylvania Capital-Star reports that “Pa. Supreme Court justices question GOP effort to impeach Philly DA Larry Krasner; Krasner’s lawyers argue the articles of impeachment died when the previous legislative session ended.”
“Justices Set to Broaden Judicial Review in Deportation Cases; Immigrants can seek hardship waiver from deportation; Courts have limited jurisdiction to review agency decisions”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Dan Markel murder: Charlie Adelson spent 35 hours on phone with mom in week of her arrest.” Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.
“Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Presides Over Ames Moot Court Final at Harvard Law School”: Jo B. Lemann and Neil H. Shah of The Harvard Crimson have this report.
Harvard Law School has posted on YouTube a video of the event titled “Ames Moot Court Competition 2023.”
“The new Trump judge revolt against the Voting Rights Act, explained; At the very moment the Supreme Court appears to be moderating on voting rights, GOP judges are going after America’s most important voting rights law”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“Why the Fifth Circuit Keeps Making Such Outlandish Decisions: The court is leaning into its reputation as a welcoming home for right-wing litigation.” Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Bid to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 violence stalls at appeals court; The long-awaited D.C. Circuit ruling in a trio of civil lawsuits could influence Trump’s criminal cases as well”: Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico have an article that begins, “A federal appeals court mulling Donald Trump’s legal liability for Jan. 6 violence is approaching a conspicuous anniversary of inaction.”
