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

A conservative Chief Justice who repeatedly stands in the way of a progressive, Democratic president, while leading a divided, unpopular Supreme Court. No, it's not Chief Justice Roberts, though the parallels are clear. It's Charles Evans Hughes, Roberts's counterpart from 1930 to 1941, who repeatedly held back President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives.

In a relatively rare presentation last Friday, the current Chief Justice discussed his predecessor, Court leadership, and the legacy of Hughes. Here are the highlights.

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, made headlines earlier this year by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, well after the Supreme Court had ruled such couples had a fundamental right to marry. She refused to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court rejected her emergency stay application. She refused even as she was condemned by conservative leaders. She refused up until she was jailed. Kim Davis was good at refusing.

Her intransigence didn't make a fan out of Justice Kennedy, however. At a recent talk with Harvard Law students, the Justice condemned public officials who refuse to carry out their duties.

Well, here's some exciting news for your weekend. This morning the Supreme Court granted certiorari to all seven Obamacare contraception mandate appeals. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide plans that cover employee's birth control. Certain religious, non-profit employers are exempted from that requirement: they just send in a form and someone else handles employee contraception.

But, petitioners argue, even that contraception exemption forces them to participate in something that's against their religious belief. Their claims have been essentially laughed out of every appeals court to date -- except for the Eighth Circuit, which recently broke ranks and ruled in religious employers' favor. Now, everyone will get to make their argument before the highest power available.

2013 was a rough year for leftist Court watchers. The Court punted on affirmative action, weakened employment discrimination protections, and cut out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. If there was solace to be had, it was in Justice Ginsburg's steadfast dissents. In two days, she read three dissents from the bench -- an almost unprecedented sign of strong disagreement.

Justice Ginsburg was quickly immortalized as the Notorious RBG by a fawning Tumblr blog. And now that Tumblr has grown into a book, Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Notorious RBG isn't just an Internet meme anymore -- it's required reading.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we live in the age of dissent. Dissents can give activists a guideline to changing the law and they can rally the faithful to a cause that's just lost -- for now. Scalia's brash style, for example, shines brightest in losing dissents.

But outside of blog headlines and Twitter quotations, a Supreme Court dissent can have real power. A new book by legal historian Melvin Urofsky, Dissent and the Supreme Court, reminds us of just that. Dissents, Urosky argues, have a powerful role in shaping the nation's constitutional dialogue and can end up embraced by the Court itself years later. Here are three times history has proven his thesis correct.

October oral arguments are over. We've heard cases on the death penalty, class actions, conspiracy and even electricity reimbursements. Now the rest of October is turned over to the Justices, and their armies of clerk-scriveners, who can actually start deciding things. In the mean time, we look ahead.

Here are our top three cases to watch in November, hitting everything from privacy litigation to asset forfeiture to employment discrimination.

Class actions are one of the best features of the American legal system. (Corporate defense lawyers and general counsel may disagree, but hear us out.) Get an unfair fee from your bank? Buy a cheap product that doesn't live up to its claims? Unjustly detained by police? Class actions are your solution. They're the main way our Lilliputian wrongs get righted.

But what if the head class representative gets justice while the rest of the injured go wanting? Is the case moot? The Supreme Court addressed just these questions this week in a case that could drastically undermine the power of class action litigation. As always, the deciding vote is in Justice Kennedy's hands.

Every once in awhile, the Supreme Court will decide a case that has widespread social and political impact, striking down discriminatory laws, upholding cherished institutions, protecting individual liberties. But not all Supreme Court opinions are great. Most are boring, technical, and of little import to the general public.

And some are downright terrible. For every Brown v. Board of Ed., there's a Buck v. Bell. Indeed, there are enough horrendous Supreme Court opinions to fill a book, or at least a blog post, and many of the Court's worst decisions still stand as good law. Here is our overview of the 13 most terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decisions.

It's an exciting time to be a SCOTUS fan. There are Scalia dolls being sold, Sotomayor danced salsa for the Nine, and Ginsburg is learning about gansta rap. Even Clarence Thomas is making some headlines!

But let's not forget, life -- and the Court -- isn't always pleasing. As Nietzsche said: "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." We at FindLaw couldn't agree more.

So, in the spirit of German nihilism and full, balanced listicle-making, here are nine depressing facts about the nine Supreme Court Justices:

The Supreme Court Justices will return from their long vacations this Monday, ready to kick off the Court's October 2015 term. They'll begin as they always do: with ritualized slaughter. Of cert petitions, that is.

Monday marks the Court's "long conference," where the Justices sift through almost 2,000 petitions for certiorari, rejecting almost all of them. It is, as The New York Times recounts, "where appeals 'go to die.'" Here's your insider guide to the killing fields.