U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Court Rules Category

When a lawsuit brings both state and federal claims, and all the federal claims are dismissed, and the federal court decides not to exercise supplemental or ancillary jurisdiction over the state law claims, how long does a plaintiff have to file those state law claims in state court?

If you answered 30 days, then you'd be right. If you answered, it depends on how long the statute was tolled, you might also be right. But, a case currently being considered by SCOTUS might finally provide a more definitive answer. In the Artis v. District of Columbia matter, the High Court is being asked to decide whether the state law claim is tolled under federal statute, or if the 30-day filing window/grace period obviates the need for tolling.

'Internet' or 'internet'? Supreme Court Widens the Capitalization Debate

You say 'tomato,' I say 'tomato.'

Wait, that doesn't work. You say 'Internet,' I say 'internet.'

Hold on. This only works if you're writing, not talking. And it only seems to matter here if the U.S. Supreme Court has anything to say, er, write about it.

Courts cannot sanction a party for their bad-faith conduct by forcing the offending litigant to cover all of the opponent's legal fees without first showing but-for causation, the Supreme Court ruled this morning. The case stems from a dispute between Goodyear Tire & Rubber and a family who claimed the company's tires were responsible for their motorhome accident. During discovery, Goodyear withheld important internal reports. Finding the misconduct especially egregious, the district court sanctioned the tire company, ordering it to pay all of the family's attorney's fees and costs since the deception began -- a total of $2.7 million.

But such an award must be "limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct," a unanimous Court determined.

This week's 'More Perfect' recap, our summer look at the interesting historical tidbits from NPR's new Supreme Court-themed podcast, focuses on the case that inspired the podcast in the first place: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, or, as it's more often known, "the Baby Veronica case."

The case "puts one little girl at the center of a storm of legal intricacies, Native American tribal culture, and heart-wrenching personal stakes," according to the podcast. And while this episode is short on Supreme Court details (there are no suicidal justices or last minute death-sentence stays, for example), it does provide a detailed look into one of the Supreme Court cases that dominated the news just a few years ago. Let's dive in.

A few hours before the clock struck midnight last Thursday, ushering in the new year, the Supreme Court released its annual year-end report. Unlike other "year in review" retrospectives, the High Court's look back tends to be a bit dry, focusing on statistics from the federal court system.

But Chief Justice Roberts wasn't willing to let the 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary be just another boring exercise in statistical reporting. Instead, he framed his report with a discussion of good, old-fashioned duels to the death.

Gun Rights Lawyer Makes Personal Request of Justice Roberts, Gets Denied

Alan Gura, the attorney who argued some of this nation's most groundbreaking modern gun cases including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, made a personal request of Chief Justice Roberts. Unfortunately for Gura, the request was denied.

The issue began last year over a section of a law that required persons to provide a good reason for carrying firearms in public streets in D.C. Alan Gura was not happy when a visiting judge from upstate New York issued an order against the city to stop enforcing the law.

1L Student Gets His Redistricting Case Heard by SCOTUS

Stephen Shapiro, a 1L at American University, has successfully convinced this nation's highest court to review whether or not a lower district judge's decision to dismiss his redistricting case was proper under the applicable state and federal law -- specifically the Three-Judge Court Act. If SCOTUS rules the that the dismissal was improper, courts will review the issue of partisan gerrymandering within the context of the First Amendment.

Shapiro's case is a feather in the cap of the 55-year-old law student. He has entered a world where he typically is confused as a professor, not a student; now he may sit before the nine justices before he's even earned his J.D.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Spokeo v. Robins, a case which could have major implications for Internet privacy litigation. Spokeo, a "people search" website, aggregates public information on individuals, from their educational levels to the cost of their house. But, whoops! Sometimes that information isn't always accurate.

When Spokeo published inaccurate information about Thomas Robins, he pursued a class action against the site for violating the privacy-focused Fair Credit Reporting Act. But besides that statutory violation, Robins couldn't point to any injury. Sure his info was wrong, but was he fired over it? Did his wife leave him? No. So, the question before the court yesterday was, then, does Robins even have any right to sue?

SCOTUS Says No to Professional Line Standers

SCOTUS has finally put down its foot: line standers will no longer be permitted at the nation's highest court. From now on, only the attorneys who actually intend to bring arguments before the Court will be permitted to stand in line of the bar section.

This is really bad news for anyone who made his living by offering his time to stand around SCOTUS. It turns out law firms pay big bucks for proxies to stand in line -- including the homeless -- for prices going for up to $6,000 an hour. Yes, that's what I said. Line standing is a business model.

The President keeps an open record of everyone who visits the White House. Congress broadcasts its most sleep-inducing business over three different C-SPAN channels. The Supreme Court? They like a bit more privacy.

That privacy is earning the Court a fair amount of criticism as it gets ready to begin its new term. From the cardinal halls of Stanford Law to the pink mail boxes of Palm Beach, Florida, the Supreme Court is facing accusations that it is too secretive in its doings.