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

With all the attention paid to Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination, and with no oral arguments scheduled until late February, you could be forgiven for losing sight of the Court's important upcoming cases. But we haven't.

The Supreme Court still has plenty of important and interesting arguments ahead in the coming months. Here are three we're looking forward to.

Speaking at Stanford University last night, Justice Ginsburg discussed what makes a meaningful life, her desire to change the Electoral College, and the importance of kale. There's been, you see, some worry that Justice Ginsburg, 83 years old, might not stay on the bench through a full Trump administration, thereby allowing one of her less-favorite political leaders to pick her replacement. There's even been talk that she should eat more kale, apparently for greater health and longevity.

Asked last night who she thought should eat more kale, the justice didn't skip a beat. "Justice Kennedy," she responded.

"Put simply," Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in his 2008 Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch concurrence, "it seems to me that in a world without Chevron very little would change -- except perhaps the most important thing." The opinion was the capstone to his opposition to the power of administrative agencies and the judicial doctrines that granted them so much deference.

But it's also appropriate for Gorsuch's own nomination to the Supreme Court, for a Court with Gorsuch on board could change very little -- except, perhaps, where it most counts.

It's Gorsuch!

After almost a full year of an eight-justice Court, President Donald Trump announced that Neil Gorsuch will be his nominee to fill the Court's vacant seat today. Gorsuch currently sits as a judge on the Tenth Circuit, where he's gained a reputation as a solid conservative in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Here's what you need to know about him.

Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court, but his influence certainly remains. And President Trump seems committed to continuing, even extending, that legacy. He's spoken of appointing justices "very much in the mold of Justice Scalia," for example, and his shortlist is full of Scalia-like originalists and textualists.

But when it comes to Trump's signature issue, that "big, beautiful wall" meant to offset the Statue of Liberty, one of Justice Scalia's opinions might stand in Trump's way.

And then there were three. Or, maybe two. President Donald Trump has narrowed his list of potential Supreme Court nominees down to three main contenders, Politico reported yesterday. Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, of the Tenth and Third Circuits, respectively, are the two front runners. William Pryor, once considered one of the most likely picks, "remains in the running but is fading," according to insiders who spoke with Politico.

So, which of the three will it be?

The Obama administration had some major wins in the Supreme Court over the past eight years. The Affordable Care Act survived challenge after challenge after challenge. The Court adopted the government's position on marriage equality, affirmative action, and abortion access.

But there were losses as well: Citizens United, immigration reform, the Voting Rights Act. And when you add it all up, the Obama administration lost a lot, according to a new study. In fact, Obama's Supreme Court record "may be the worst since the Zachary Taylor administration."

In the Supreme Court, it's traditional for new justices to sit out of decisions in cases that were argued before they took the bench. That means if, for example, a Trump-nominated justice were to join the court on February 1st, they would not take part in decisions in cases where oral arguments were held earlier in the term.

But that is just tradition. There are no hard-and-fast rules keeping justices from participating in decisions when they weren't part of oral arguments.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that involves the strange, interesting intersection of free speech rights and, well, credit cards surcharges. New York, along with several other states, prohibits merchants from charging costumers a surcharge for using credit cards. But New York also allows merchants to offer discounts for paying in cash. So, if your groceries cost $20, the store cannot charge you $2 more for paying with a Visa. But they can give you a $2 discount for paying with hard cash.

Semantics, right? Yes, according to merchants challenging the law, who argue that such laws unconstitutionally restrict the speech they can use when describing prices.

With President-elect Trump's inauguration quick approaching, we could soon have a new nominee to the Supreme Court, almost a year after Justice Scalia's death and after nearly 300 days of Senate Republicans refusing to consider Merrick Garland's nomination. The Supreme Court would finally be back to a full set of justices, its frequent deadlocked non-decisions a thing of the past.

Or not. As Trump narrows down his SCOTUS list, some are suggesting that Democrats should block any or all of Trump's Supreme Court nominees.