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

A few months ago, the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency was widely dismissed. Now, the Donald has become the presumptive Republican nominee, giving him a not-insignificant chance at ruling the most powerful country in the world -- and selecting its Supreme Court justices.

And while Senate Republicans have stalled the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump has been busy putting together his own list of potential nominees, which he released today. Let's take a look.

You Google yourself. Go ahead, admit it. We all do. (Some people, I hear, even Bing themselves.)

But what if the Internet got your information wrong, giving you and everyone who Googled you an inaccurate view of your life? Do you have any recourse? For Thomas Robins, the chosen remedy was a lawsuit. When the "people search" website Spokeo published information about his life and got that information significantly wrong, Robins sued the company for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. That suit faced a major setback from the Supreme Court on Monday, however, when the Court remanded Robins' suit for a more demanding inquiring into his standing.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion, or rather, a non-opinion, in one of the term's most important cases, Zubik v. Burwell, a challenge to Obamacare's contraception mandate procedures. In a brief, per curiam opinion, the Court remanded seven cases it had chosen to decide just months before -- without deciding any of the constitutional issues at hand. Accompanying orders tossed six more cases back to the appellate courts, where the judges will now have to grapple with the issues the Justices avoided, with little instruction other than to play nice and seek out compromise.

Is this the sign of a Court in disarray, crippled by a divided eight-Justice court? Or a pragmatic attempt to reach a compromise where compromise seems possible? Or none of the above?

Oral arguments ended last week, but there are still nearly two months left in the Supreme Court's current term. Now's the time when the Court moves from considering the cases before it to finally deciding them -- a process that certainly more complicated this year, given the lack of a ninth justice.

We're expecting a steady trickle of decisions throughout the upcoming weeks, with the most important opinions being released at the end of June, as is typical. Here are the opinions we're awaiting most anxiously.

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.