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

Today marks the 100th day since D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court. That is 100 days without formal consideration of his nomination; 100 days without a hearing by the Senate; 100 days with no Senatorial advice and certainly no consent. As Senate Republican leaders continue to refuse to consider Garland's nomination, Justice Scalia's former seat might remain vacant for 100 more.

The situation is "appalling" in the eyes of the judiciary, according to a federal judge who recently spoke out about the delay. He was joined by two colleagues, all former judges, who recently spoke out against the extended vacancy on the Supreme Court, arguing that it made life more difficult for the judiciary and diminished the authority of the Supreme Court and the political system.

Justice Scalia's former seat on the Supreme Court has sat vacant for 125 days, as of today. That makes it the third longest Supreme Court vacancy in the 20th century, lasting almost three times as long as the average vacancy of 55 days. And in the three months since President Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Chief Justice Merrick Garland to fill that seat, the Senate has held no official meetings, hearings, or votes on the nomination.

When it comes to the battle over the empty Supreme Court seat, it looks like Senate Republicans are winning.

Puerto Rico may have its own constitution, elect its own leaders, and pass its own laws, but when it comes down to it, Congress, not the people of Puerto Rico, is the ultimate source of the island government's power. That's the lesson from today's Supreme Court ruling in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, over whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could prosecute criminals already tried by the federal government, as the 50 states can.

Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, both federal and state governments may prosecute an individual for a crime, so long as they do so under their own laws. Puerto Rico argued that it was entitled to the same rights as the states when it came to double jeopardy. But, while acknowledging Puerto Rico's "distinctive, indeed exceptional status," the Court ultimately determined that Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power comes from the U.S. Congress, rejecting the island's claim to state-like sovereignty. The ruling is a blow to the island, and it may soon be followed by more Supreme Court losses in the near future.

Few faces are more familiar in the Supreme Court than Donald Verrilli's. As solicitor general, he's argued more cases before the Court over the last five years than any other attorney. And those included a large amount of landmark victories, from defending Obamacare to winning constitutional protections for same-sex couples.

But yesterday, Verrilli announced that he's stepping down at the end of this month. What's next for the future former Solicitor General? Our guess is he won't be away from the Supreme Court for too long.

The Supreme Court made it easier for property owners to challenge Clean Water Act protections yesterday. A unanimous court ruled that a "jurisdictional determination," an agency decision that land contains waters protected by the act, is a final agency action that can be challenged in court.

Will the decision launch an Armada of new CWA lawsuits? Or will it stop the use of jurisdictional determinations altogether?

Justice Ginsburg, speaking at the Second Circuit Judicial Conference last Thursday, said what everyone knows but no justice has spoken aloud until now: when it comes to running the Supreme Court, eight justices aren't enough.

Until now, the Supreme Court justices had largely played down the impact of a vacant seat on the Court -- or they had remained mum. Justice Ginsburg, however, was a bit more forthright in her assessment. In a speech focused largely on her relationship with Justice Scalia, it was obvious how important the two had been to each other; but Justice Ginsburg also made clear that Scalia was not irreplaceable and that the Court was not fully functional with only eight justices.

It's not uncommon for men to interrupt and talk over their female colleagues, as many women can attest -- when they can get a word in. There's even a term for it: "manterrupting."

And the trend extends all the way to the highest court in the land, as a new analysis shows Justices Kagan and Sotomayor being interrupted much more frequently than their male colleagues.

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?