Author: Edith Roberts

At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser discusses Sen. John McCain’s assertion in an interview on Monday (later softened by a statement from McCain’s office) that Senate Republicans will block any Supreme Court nominee if Hillary Clinton wins in November, arguing that the “tactic that McCain is proposing is nothing less than an existential threat to the Supreme Court itself.” The editorial board of The Washington Post also weighs in on McCain’s remarks, noting that while “in the past, Mr. McCain … was a voice of restraint on these matters,” he now “recklessly encourages Republican voters to expect that GOP senators will refuse any Democratic Supreme Court nominee.” Additional commentary comes from Tara Goldshan in Vox, who observes that “McCain is directly stating something that the public has known all along — that the argument against Garland is not about democracy but ideology,” and in an op-ed in The Arizona Republic, where E.J. Montini maintains that what “McCain is admitting to -- what he is actually promising -- is a dereliction of his constitutional duty.” Also at Vox, Matthew Yglesias points out that “it’s hard not to sympathize with the GOP” and that this “kind of irresolvable conflict is, unfortunately, baked into America’s system of government — a system that really only works if the parties aren’t ideologically disciplined and polarized." At Above the Law, Elie Mystal asserts that “this is a constitutional crisis unfolding in plain sight.” 

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to review a death penalty case, Elmore v. Holbrook, that it had considered at eight prior conferences. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Amy Howe covers the decision for this blog. Commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, who observes that if “the defendant is sentenced to death, as people who commit horrible crimes frequently are and should be, the capital appeal defense cult stands ready to say that the trial lawyer was incompetent for taking the path that he did at each fork in the road, regardless of which one he took.” And at Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes trends in the justices’ dissents from denial of certiorari, which “are part of a whole species of Supreme Court decision-making that takes place outside of the Court’s plenary review,” for the 2010 through 2015 terms.

The vacant seat on the Supreme Court continues to elicit broad comment. In an op-ed in Time, former solicitor general Donald Verrilli argues that Republican senators’ “obstructionism has ensured that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake on Nov. 8”; he notes that though “the person who fills Scalia’s seat will likely cast a decisive vote on many issues that matter most to the American people,” “something even more profound is on the line in this election: the public’s faith in the Supreme Court as an institution of law and not politics.” In The Morning Call, Elizabeth Wydra decries the Senate nomination stalemate, maintaining that the refusal to take any action on the nomination is “paralyzing the high court when the eight justices are evenly divided, and chipping away at the court's stature and credibility by injecting it with politics.” Slate’s Amicus podcast features a discussion with high-level presidential advisors of President Barack Obama’s handling of the Supreme Court vacancy.

Ronald Mann provides this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s oral argument in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a high-stakes dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement. Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf and Jon Swartz at USA Today, who note that the “acrimonious battle between the world's two most successful smartphone makers, which began in April 2011, could redefine a 130-year-old design patent law and upend the tech industry.” At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman breaks down the oral argument in the case, calculating the relative speaking time of the advocates and justices and the number of questions asked of each advocate.

Coverage of Tuesday’s oral arguments continues. In Ars Technica, Joe Mullin discusses the argument in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement, noting that groups “that have been pushing for patent reform have already released statements hopeful that the high court will at least tone down the massive verdict.” Coverage of the argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which involves racial bias in jury deliberations, comes from Robert Barnes at The Washington Post, who reports that “Justice Elena Kagan called it ‘the best smoking-gun evidence you’re ever going to see about race bias in the jury room,’” and Adam Liptak at The New York Times, who notes that the argument was “marked by testy exchanges.” Commentary on Pena-Rodriguez comes from Elizabeth Wydra, who in The Huffington Post urges the court to “rule in favor of Peña-Rodriguez to make clear that racial prejudice has no place in our judicial system.” Steve Vladeck provides this blog’s analysis of the argument in Manrique v. United States, which centers on an appeal of a restitution award.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases. First up was Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement. Coverage comes from Nina Totenberg and An-Li Herring at NPR, Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Tony Mauro at Law.com, and Susan Decker and Greg Stohr at Bloomberg. Commentary comes from Michael Bobelian at Forbes. Next was Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which involves racial bias in jury deliberations. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. For NPR, Nina Totenberg previews the case and reports on the argument. Andrew King weighs in on the case at Mimesis Law. In the afternoon, the court heard argument in Manrique v. United States, centering on an appeal of a restitution award.

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases. First on the schedule is Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a high-stakes dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog, as do Jaeeun Shin and Dara Brown for Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Advance coverage comes from Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Dave Lee at BBC News and Jeff John Roberts at Fortune. Next is Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which involves racial bias in jury deliberations; Amy Howe provided this blog’s preview, and Karen Ojeda and Nicholas Halliburton preview the case for Cornell. In the afternoon, the court will hear argument in Manrique v. United States, centering on an appeal of a restitution award; Steve Vladeck previewed the case for this blog; Emily Rector and Kimberly Petrick do the same for Cornell.

On Wednesday afternoon, the court heard oral argument in Manuel v. City of Joliet, a case about whether a malicious prosecution suit can be brought under the Fourth Amendment; Rory Little analyzed the argument for this blog. Coverage of Wednesday’s argument in Buck v. Davis, a death penalty case involving racial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel, comes from Steven Mazie for The Economist, who notes that “none of the justices seemed comfortable sending Mr Buck to his death based on the racially tainted testimony that was ringing in the jurors’ ears as they entered the jury room,” and from Chris McDaniel and Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed, who report that although the court appeared poised to rule in Buck’s favor, the justices “spent much of the time during oral arguments discussing how far the ruling should go and what its impact would be on other cases.”

Analysis of Tuesday’s oral argument in Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, a double jeopardy case, comes from Rory Little for this blog. Robert Barnes covered the argument for The Washington Post, as did Mark Sherman and Sam Hananel for the Associated Press. In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports on Tuesday’s oral argument in the federal bank fraud case Shaw v. United States, during which Justice Stephen Breyer drew from popular culture headlines with a hypothetical question based on “the recent Kim Kardashian jewelry heist in Paris.” Cristian Farias at the Huffington Post also mentions the Kardashian hypothetical in his coverage of the arguments in Shaw.

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. First up is Salman v. United States, an insider trading case. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Another preview comes from Huilanzi Gong and Natalia San Juan at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Next is Buck v. Davis, which Amy Howe also previewed for this blog, and which involves racial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel in a death penalty case. Cornell’s Cassandra Desjourdy and Weiru Fang provide another preview of Buck, and Nina Totenberg reports on the case for NPR. After lunch, the court will hear arguments in Manuel v. City of Joliet, which asks whether and when a malicious prosecution case can be brought under the Fourth Amendment. Rory Little previewed the case for this blog, while Alla Khodykina and Rachael E. Hancock do the same for Cornell.