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

The Supreme Court tossed out two class action challenges brought by Visa yesterday, less than a month before the financial services company was scheduled to make oral arguments.

The reason? Visa had asked the Court to address one question in their petition for cert, but pursued a different argument in their merits briefing. The Supreme Court, unamused by Visa's shifting legal strategy, decided that Visa won't have a chance to make any of its legal arguments, dismissing the case as improvidently granted.

Well, that was surprising, right? If you were like most of us -- those of us who spent the last few days obsessively checking presidential polls, that is -- a Trump victory on Tuesday wasn't what you were expecting. But it happened, leaving Donald Trump in charge of the White House and primed to make his impact felt on the Supreme Court.

What a Trump administration looks like remains somewhat of a mystery. (Will he really force Apple to make all its iPhones in America? What "terrific" thing will he try to replace Obamacare with? What will America's nuclear policy actually look like?) But when it comes to the Supreme Court, we can make a few basic predictions, even in the face of a largely uncertain future.

The Supreme Court is looking to keep controversial, potentially divisive issues off its docket this term, the conventional wisdom goes -- at least until it has a ninth justice on the bench. Today's oral arguments, for example, deal with service dogs and administrative exhaustion, for one, and cheerleader uniforms, in the other. Hardly the kind of issues that grab headlines or split the Court.

But the idea that the Court was playing it safe was upended on Friday, when the Court granted cert in five new cases, including a dispute over transgender students' ability to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry. So far, the impact of that ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, has largely been confined to similar issues. (A quick review: Does Obergefell mean that state same-sex marriage bans are invalid? Yes, of course. Even Puerto Rico's? Yes. Does it require states to issue same-sex marriage licenses? Yes. Even if you're Kim Davis? Yes. Even if you're in Alabama? Yes. Really? Yes.)

But now a new lawsuit is turning to Obergefell to strike down marriage license paperwork requirements in Louisiana. These requirements are seen by marriage equality advocates as unconstitutionally burdening the marriage rights of immigrants and refugees, be they gay, straight, or other.

She's not fat and she's not singing, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will soon become the star of an opera. The Supreme Court Justice and well-known opera fan is set to debut as the Duchess of Krakenthorp in Italian composer Gaetano Donizetti's "The Daughter of the Regiment," the Washington National Opera announced last Friday.

RBG will be performing as the Notorious Duchess of Krakenthorp for one night only, though, so be sure to get your tickets in advance.

Two hundred and nineteen days ago, President Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Since then, well, you know what's happened: not much. The Senate has steadfastly refused to consider Garland's nomination, on the grounds that the next president should decide who replaces the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

As the days tick by and the election approaches, the odds of Garland getting to the Supreme Court grow increasingly slim. Does his still have any chance left?

Last night's presidential debate, the final of three, was the first to devote a significant portion of the discussion to the future of the Supreme Court. And thankfully, SCOTUS came first, meaning the dialogue remained largely coherent, if not always on point.

This debate probably won't be remembered for its fights over D.C. v. Heller or ruminations on the Senate's role in the Supreme Court nomination process. But it did have some points worth noting. Here are our highlights.

When it comes to its decisions on ethics, judicial recusals, even civil rights, is the Supreme Court being hypocritical, creating one standard for lower courts and another for itself? That's the argument Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, made in a recent New York Times op-ed.

Roth points to the Court's precedence on recusals, protest zones, and even the justice's ages as signs that the Court's might want to jettison its "equal justice under law" motto for "do as we say, not as we do."

If you've been following Supreme Court oral arguments this term, you might have noticed something slightly different: a large influx of women advocates. Almost half of the lawyers arguing before the Court in its October cycle were women.

The amount of women appearing before the Supreme Court is unprecedented, and it comes at a time when the Supreme Court itself has its greatest percentage of female justices ever, with the potential that women could soon become a majority on the Court.

With less than a month before the elections, the two major-party candidates did something almost unprecedented during last night's presidential town hall: They addressed the future of the Supreme Court.

Between the sniffling and sighing, the personal attacks and tax policy, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump briefly laid out their vision for the future of the Court, describing, in sharply contrasting terms, who they would look to put on the Supreme Court bench should they become president.