Supreme Court People and Events News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in People and Events Category

Muhammad Ali won his first world heavyweight championship when he was just 22 years old. "I am the greatest! I shook up the world. I'm the prettiest thing that ever lived," he declared after his victory. And he was more or less right. Ali would go on to win that title twice more, establishing himself as one of the most talented athletes of the 20th Century.

But Muhammad Ali wasn't just an athlete. He was a civil rights champion and a major cultural and political figure. And after he refused to fight in the Vietnam War, he was a champion in the Supreme Court as well. Here's a look back at Ali's legal win.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Virginia's court-imposed redistricting yesterday, ruling that three Virginia Congressmen could not show that they were harmed by the new plan. The ruling brings an end to a long-standing dispute over Virginia's congressional districting which arose after a federal district court ruled in 2012 that the state's redrawn congressional map relied too heavily on race, segregating black voters into already majority-African American district.

Representatives Randy Forbes, Robert Wittman, and David Brat, all Republicans, sought to challenge that ruling. But none of the Congress members were representatives of the district at issue and none of them could show how they would be harmed if the old plan was not reestablished, the Supreme Court determined in a short, unanimous decision written by Justice Brennan.

After a few slow weeks, the Supreme Court dropped five new opinions this morning. They're not just small-beans disputes either -- rather, they include two of the Court's most important cases of the term, both of which touch on important constitutional issues. Those are Zubik v. Burwell, a challenge to Obamacare's contraception mandate, and Spokeo v. Robins, a dispute over whether privacy violations are sufficient to confer standing.

Here's a quick and dirty review of those opinions, with more to come in the following days.

Merrick Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit and President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, submitted his completed questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. The questionnaire is a routine part of the Supreme Court nomination process -- and, given the unprecedented fight over Garland's nomination, part of the White House's attempt to pressure the Senate into acting. (The Judiciary Committee hadn't even requested that Garland complete the questionnaire.)

We read the whole thing, so you don't have to. (Alright, we read some of it. The full response included thousands of pages of supporting documents. The public version is a mere 142 pages long.) Here are some of the highlights.

The Supreme Court heard the final oral argument of the season last Wednesday. And while we're still waiting for decisions in many of those cases, we can now get a sense of which attorneys had the biggest impact on the Court this term -- at least when measured by their participation in cases argued.

In fact, we can get more than a sense, we can get exact numbers, thanks to the folks at Empirical SCOTUS who counted up the Court's top litigators so you don't have to. Let's take a look at the results.

The Supreme Court heard its final oral argument of the term this morning, and it was a fittingly weighty one: the case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell was convicted on corruption charges in 2014, stemming from his relationship with a Richmond businessman who gave him nearly $200,000 in gifts and loans.

McDonnell currently faces two years in prison for public corruption, but he may end up going free without serving a single day, if today's oral arguments are any indication. A majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed ready to significantly limit, or maybe even strike down, the federal bribery statute used to convict the governor.

Throughout the past eight years, President Obama has worked slowly but surely to bring greater diversity to the federal courts, the president assured law students at the University of Chicago Law School earlier this month. But when it came time to picking his third Supreme Court nominee, he told the crowd, "at no point did I say: 'I need a black lesbian from Skokie in that slot.'"

Why not?

Victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism won big in the Supreme Court this morning. Today, in a 6-2 ruling authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court upheld a law giving terror victims an explicit right to collect a court judgment against Iran. That 2012 law, passed as federal courts were considering the same question, did not overstep the separation of powers between Congress and the courts, the Supreme Court ruled.

The ruling opens up a $2 billion judgment against Iran, making the money available to the more than 1,000 victims and families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including a 1983 bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

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?

Merrick Garland isn't just President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court; he's one of the Court's most successful feeder judges, sending 42 of his clerks on to Supreme Court clerkships. That's more than half of the 71 clerks Garland has had since joining the federal bench in 1997. And even those who don't go on to clerk for the Supreme Court often retain a close and supportive relationship with Garland, former clerks say.

Now, Garland's clerks are seeking to return the favor, hoping to help the federal judge advance to the Supreme Court. Last Monday, 68 of his former clerks sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging them to act on Garland's nomination.