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 refused to intervene in a conflict over Texas's voter identification law today. That law, which imposes some of the most rigorous voter ID requirements in the country, has been used in Texas's last three elections, even though the Fifth Circuit has found the law to have a discriminatory effect. And those voter ID requirements will continue to remain in place for Texas's upcoming runoff elections in May, now that the Supreme Court has refused to halt the law's enforcement.

But the Court might not stay away much longer. In its order, the Supreme Court gave the Fifth Circuit until July 20th to act on the dispute. If it doesn't, the order explained, then the Supreme Court would be likely to step in.

Thirteen deaf and hard of hearing lawyers will be sworn in at the Supreme Court next week. The attorneys are members of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association, a professional association of "deaf, hard of hearing, and late-deafened attorneys, judges, law school graduates, law students, and legal professionals."

And while Supreme Court swearing-in ceremonies are regular events, occurring just about every day the Court is in session, this will mark the first time a member of the DHHBA has joined the Supreme Court Bar. The Court is even relaxing its cell phone ban for the occasion.

In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over what the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate can require of religious employers. The case, set to be decided by the end of the term, could affect how millions of workers get access to contraception -- and how religious employers get around providing it.

But the case may also force the Court to address more than just access to the pill and family planning. At its heart, Zubik v. Burwell is a conflict over who determines when religious beliefs have been burdened and how far the government must go to accommodate the aggrieved faithful.

There's a long tradition of Supreme Court justices returning to law schools to talk about the law, spread some SCOTUS wisdom, and even delve into politics occasionally. But in the last few weeks of this very unusual Supreme Court term, it seems as though the justices are stopping by law schools more than ever. And they've got company, as President Obama returned last Thursday to speak at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught for 12 years.

So, what did the justices and President Obama have to say?

In a surprising and unprecedented move today, a divided and increasingly deadlocked Supreme Court announced that it was canceling the rest of the October 2015 Term. The announcement revealed a Court frustrated by a series of evenly-divided decisions, unable to reach a viable majority on some of the nation's most important cases.

Speaking from the Supreme Court steps, Chief Justice Roberts said that, while the Court values its constitutional role, continuing on with just eight justices was "an exercise is Sisyphean futility and, frankly, we have better things to do."

When Justice Scalia died, just over six weeks ago, Senate Republicans immediately announced their opposition to an Obama-appointed replacement. They would withhold their advice and consent until after the Presidential elections, they maintained, even as the President nominated a well-liked, highly-qualified moderate like Merrick Garland.

But, Republican resolve might be weakening, and it's becoming more likely that we'll see a ninth justice before November.

The goal of the Clean Water Act is fairly straight forward: to protect and restore the waters of the United States. But what counts as "waters of the United States" is often a tricky and highly contentious question. And if federal agencies determine that your isolated marsh, seasonal ponds, or agricultural slough are subject to regulation under the act, then a whole host of legal restrictions can suddenly apply. Yet, you may not be able to challenge that determination until years in the future.

That is to say, CWA disputes can quickly get a bit murky. The Supreme Court jumped right into those muddy waters today, in its first major environmental case since the death of Justice Scalia. The court heard arguments in a challenge to CWA determinations that blended environmental and administrative law with questions of justice and jurisdiction.

Meet John Sturgeon, a hunter, a septuagenarian, an Alaskan, and, as of Tuesday, a victorious Supreme Court litigant. Sturgeon wound up before the Supreme Court after his hovercraft broke down as he was traveling through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve to hunt moose. Park officers told the moose hunter he couldn't use his hovercraft, or any other motorized equipment, on the rivers.

Sturgeon objected. The river, he argued, was Alaska's, not the federal governments'. And while longstanding precedent allows the federal government to regulate activities adjacent to and effecting federal lands, Alaska is different, Sturgeon argued. The Supreme Court agreed in a unanimous, but narrow, opinion.

The Supreme Court heard lively oral arguments this morning in a case over whether religious organizations must comply with Affordable Care Act rules on the provisioning of contraception through employee health insurance plans.

Those employers, which include religious universities, hospitals, and one group of nuns, don't actually provide contraception directly, however. They are already exempt from that requirement. Once they notify the government of their objections, their insurer handles employee contraception on its own. But even that, the employers argued before the Supreme Court today, is too great a burden on their religious beliefs. Here's how the arguments went down.

We knew it was coming and now it's started. Ever since Justice Scalia's sudden death in mid-February, the Supreme Court has been down a justice, evenly divided, four against four, between its more conservative and liberal wings. A deadlocked Court was inevitable and today the Court released its first equally divided ruling since Justice Scalia's passing.

Expect to see more of this in the future.