Supreme Court Court News News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Court News Category

Fans of the Supreme Court and NPR are in for a treat. Radiolab, NPR's science-based radio show, has its first spin off: More Perfect. This new podcast, which you can listen to online, takes a look at "the rarefied world of the Supreme Court to explain how cases deliberated inside hallowed halls affect lives far away from the bench."

And while the characters and cases that "More Perfect" touches on won't be unfamiliar to legal professionals, some of the backstory might be. For the rest of the summer, we'll be providing weekly reviews of past episodes. We hope you'll follow us along as we explore some lesser-known Supreme Court history, unearthed by the journalists behind "More Perfect."

The Notorious RBG made herself a bit more notorious earlier this month, after she repeatedly criticized Donald Trump in the press, saying he was a "faker" and joking about moving to New Zealand should he become president. After a swift backlash from the left and the right, Justice Ginsburg apologized, saying that "judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office" and promising that "in the future I will be more circumspect."

Justice Ginsburg's mea culpa didn't satisfy some critics, however. Trump called on her to resign, while others have said her comments reveal a political bias which should disqualify her for the Court. Which raises the question, to what extent is such a thing even possible?

The Supreme Court might be the highest Court in the United States, but that doesn't mean the justices are bound in by our nation's borders, and they're certainly not grounded to D.C. In fact, many of the justices are frequent fliers, jaunting off to Asia to give a speech on the U.S. Constitution, for example, spending their summers in France teaching, or just chilling out at an exclusive Texas ranch with a bunch of berobed businessmen in a secretive order of hunters. (That's the Order of St. Hubertus, who Justice Scalia was traveling with when he died in February.)

Many of those trips are on someone else's dime, meaning that they have to be made public in the justices' annual financial disclosure forms -- and allowing us to peak in on which Supreme Court justice spent the most time taking paid trips last year.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no fan of Donald Trump and it does not seem that Trump has much love for one of the Court's most high-profile liberals, either. But their feelings have erupted into an unprecedented political feud after Justice Ginsburg announced that she couldn't even fathom a Trump presidency, and joked that she might need to move to New Zealand should he win.

While it's common for presidential candidates to criticize the Supreme Court, it's almost unheard of for a sitting justice to weigh in on the candidates. What would cause Justice Ginsburg to break so dramatically with tradition, ethics, and Supreme Court decorum?

No one will ever accuse the Supreme Court of being too quick to embrace new technology. The Court didn't start post oral argument recordings on its website until 2010 and its online slip opinions only go back to 2009. Just six years ago, Justice Kennedy and the late Justice Scalia let it slip during arguments that they didn't really know how text messages worked -- at all. And when it comes to one of the most ubiquitous forms of technology this side of electricity, the Court isn't really caught up, either. In 2013, Justice Kagan said that the Court hadn't "gotten to" email just yet.

But, it turns out, the Supreme Court justices do use email after all. Well, two of them do, that is.

Are your Democrat friends and colleagues threatening to move to Canada should Donald Trump win the presidential elections? Well, they may not be getting far enough away, at least not for one of the Supreme Court's most liberal justices.

In a uniquely revealing and political interview, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that, should Trump be elected, she just may have to move to New Zealand.

The Supreme Court's October 2015 Term was truly historic. This term saw the death of Justice Scalia, which was immediately marked by politicized fighting over his replacement, even before the memorials had begun. It saw Justice Thomas speak during oral arguments, for the first time in a decade, and Justice Sotomayor find her voice as one of the Court's great dissenters. It saw Justice Breyer yelling on the Late Show and Justice Ginsburg writing her first book in decades.

Somewhere between all that, cases were decided -- important, landmark cases, some of them. And as controversial as the term might have been, what mattered most were those decisions. Here they are.

The Supreme Court's October 2015 Term, which ended this week, was not like many others. Sure, there were the high-profile, landmark cases, disputes over civil rights, affirmative action, abortion. But there were also events, inside and outside the Court, that sometimes seemed to overshadow the Supreme Court's legal work.

Here's a quick look back at the controversies, and not the cases, that mattered most this term.

The Supreme Court released its final batch of decisions for the term on Monday, major opinions in abortion rights, political corruption, and firearm ownership. But the justices didn't take off for summer vacation straight away. On Tuesday, the Court granted cert to eight new cases, to be scheduled for the October 2016 terms.

That brings the Court's cases for the upcoming term to 32. Many of them promise to be important and potentially controversial decisions, touching on everything from racial bias in criminal proceedings, to the death penalty, to the role of church and state, and even ATM fees. Here's a quick preview of what's to come.

The Supreme Court struck down restrictive regulations on abortion providers in Texas today, in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, ruling that those restrictions constitute an undue burden on a woman's access to abortion, in violation of the Constitution.

The restrictions, which required abortion providers to obtain admitting-privileges at hospitals and meet the requirements of surgical centers, would have forced the vast majority of Texas's abortion clinics to close. Those requirements created substantial obstacles to abortion access while doing little to protect the health of women, the Court ruled in a 5-3 decision.