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

We wrote last week about the small handful of lawyers who have had the most success as litigators before the Supreme Court, literally getting the Justices to adopt their words as the Court's own. Those ten attorneys stand out among even the most elite of Supreme Court practitioners, dominating an already small cadre of 66 lawyers who control Supreme Court litigation.

Of course, their expertise -- and success -- doesn't come cheaply. A single hour with the top Supreme Court litigators costs more than the average American family earns in a week.

Use active verbs. Keep your sentences short. Don't dwell too long on case history. Win in the Supreme Court. At least, that's the pattern identified by University of Southern California Ph.D. candidate Adam Feldman, who analyzed the writing style of Supreme Court briefs to see who had their brief language picked up by the Justices themselves.

That analysis, which looked at 9,400 briefs filed between 1946 and 2013, found a distinctive writing style associated with success in the Supreme Court. Not only does that writing help win cases, it finds its way into the High Court's opinions as well. Yep -- it's not just the law clerks who write the Justices' opinions. The most successful Supreme Court lawyers get their language in there as well.

For Supreme Court fans, and voracious readers, now's a great time to step into a book store. Richard Collins, of SCOTUSblog, recently put together a list of 18 new and forthcoming SCOTUS-focused tomes, from traditional biographies, to discussions of the legal system generally, to Court histories, political jeremiads, and academic reports.

Oh, and did we mention that Justice Breyer has a new book planned? His fourth since taking the bench, the new book is focused on American law and its connection to the rest of the world. Here's a preview of it and several of the others soon to be hot off the presses.

Over the last few years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has emerged as an unexpected pop culture superstar. For court watchers, Ginsburg has long been a strong voice for feminism and liberalism on the bench, but lately she has gained celebrity status among the general public, making fans among politically minded youth sixty years her junior.

Justice Ginsburg reminded us that her celebrity was well deserved the other day, in comments she made while speaking at Duke University School of Law. Her talk was a classic mix of Supreme Court insider views, passionate political conviction, and bits of pop culture. The best revelation? The Notorious R.B.G. has been studying up on gangsta rap.

For those of you who can't wait for the Supreme Court to get back from summer recess, there's some good news. No, the Court hasn't decided to call its vacation off. But it has released the schedule for the first oral arguments of the 2015 term.

All told, the Court will hear 11 cases in its first sitting. The topics covered range from relatively mundane to pretty dang interesting. Here's a quick overview of a few of the best:

John Roberts and Alfred Postell both graduated Harvard Law School in 1979. After graduation, Roberts went on to clerk for Judge Friendly, while Postell practiced tax law in a prestigious firm. Their lives diverged as they advanced. John Roberts became Deputy Solicitor General, a Supreme Court litigator, federal judge, and eventually Chief Justice. Postell was overtaken by schizophrenia. He lost his job and his home.

The two still remain close, at least physically. While Chief Justice Roberts sits on the Supreme Court bench, Postell spends his days homeless on the streets of D.C., just a block from the White House and a short walk away from the Supreme Court.

It's been a long and historical term for the Supreme Court. The High Court has issued momentous rulings upholding Obamacare, recognizing a constitutional right to marriage equality, expanding anti-discrimination law, and knocking down environmental regulations. Oh, and it ruled that fish weren't tangible objects, at least not the kind that the corporate-focused Sarbanes-Oxley Act had in mind when prohibiting evidence destruction.

As always, many important rulings didn't make major headlines. Here are three cases that deserve more attention than they got, both for their immediate impact and what they might tell us about future decisions.

There's a reason doctors advise pregnant women to avoid eating fish -- there's a high risk that they are contaminated by mercury, a powerful neurotoxin to which pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable. 

How do fish end up full of mercury? Most commonly, fish are exposed to air pollution released by coal burning power plants, the largest source of mercury pollution. Mercury exposure has been linked to respiratory disease, birth defects, and developmental problems in children.

In 2011, the EPA released new regulations under the Clean Air Act in order to stem mercury pollution and other air toxins by requiring pollution controls on coal-burning power plants. The Supreme Court struck those regulations down yesterday, saying that the EPA had failed to look closely enough at the costs of the pollution controls before limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.

The Affordable Care Act allows the federal government to provide subsidies to poor and middle-class people purchasing insurance on the federal exchange, the Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell today. Opponents to Obamacare had claimed that federal subsidies were, based on the language of the Act, limited to plans purchased on exchanges individual states set up themselves, not those obtained through Healthcare.gov.

The exact language of the Act must yield to its overall intent, the Court decided in its 6-3 decision. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."

The Supreme Court released only one opinion this Monday, but it's a significant one. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Court held 6-3 that the President does not need to follow a law requiring the State Department to label, on passports, that American children born in Jerusalem were born in Israel.

That seems like a minor issue, but it has significant implications, beyond even the conflict between Israel and Palestine over who controls the Holy City. With Zivotosfsky, the Court affirmed that the President has exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns, even over congressional objections.