Breaking News

Author: Kristina Moore

By on Sep 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
A number of panels and conferences are scheduled this month and at the beginning of October to preview the Court's 2009 term -- many require pre-registration. Details are below the jump.

By on Sep 21, 2009 at 8:35 am
The stakes for the outcome of Citizens United and the McCain-Feingold law have been raised after the D.C. Circuit's decision last Friday in Emily's List v. FEC. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Blog of the Legal Times and Election Law Blog each analyze the appellate opinion, which struck down federal campaign finance regulations that restricted the ability of independent political groups to fund election-related activities. The three-judge panel followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life to hold that groups such as MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have a First Amendment right to raise and spend money for elections, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with a candidate or a party. Rick Hasen suggests that this ruling could lead to a "more negative campaign season," as interest groups tend to run more negative ads than political parties do.

By on Sep 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The first edition of “Petitions to Watch” for the October 2009 term features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Because of the great number of petitions to be considered, we'll have multiple installations leading up to the "long conference." As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.   Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

By on Sep 14, 2009 at 9:01 am
This week, we're trying out a new daily feature on SCOTUSBlog that summarizes coverage of and commentary about the Supreme Court. Each morning a different contributor will post links and brief synopsis to supplement our round-up sidebar: I'll be on Monday; Anna Christensen of Howe & Russell on Tuesday; Jay Willis on Wednesday; Erin Miller on Thursday; and Adam Schlossman of Akin Gump on Friday. Please send any feedback to scotusblog.feedback [at] gmail [dot] com. Citizens United still dominates Court watchers' commentary. Jeffrey Rosen argues in a NYT  Week in Review op-ed, "The Trial of John Roberts" that Citizens United will be a defining case for Chief Justice John G. Roberts, as Miranda was for Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. If the Court rules broadly and reverses its precedent in Austin v. Michigan by an ideologically divided majority, Roberts risks developing the image of a polarizing jurist. In Newsweek,  Howard Fineman is similarly "suspicious" of the Roberts Court's pro-business activism. He calls for the Court to allow corporate and union funding of political speech, but to set spending limits.

By on Aug 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Below, Erica Goldberg previews McDaniel v. Brown, one of the three cases to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13. Erica is a graduate of Stanford Law School. Check the McDaniel  v. Brown (08-559) SCOTUSwiki page throughout the summer for additional updates. At the heart of McDaniel v. Brown is the “prosecutor’s fallacy,” a trial error in which the prosecution equates the probability of the defendant’s DNA randomly matching the DNA found at the crime scene with the probability of the defendant’s innocence.  But it is the possible analytical fallacies contained in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion granting relief to a potentially innocent defendant, that have caused confusion among both sides as to what the court of appeals actually decided.   On October 13, the Court will hear oral argument to determine whether the Ninth Circuit erroneously awarded a convicted child rapist a new trial.

By on Aug 20, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Below, Natasha Fedder previews Johnson v. U. S., one of the three cases to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 6.  Natasha is a rising third year at University of Pennsylvania Law School and a summer associate at Akin Gump. Check the Johnson v. U. S. SCOTUSwiki page throughout the summer for additional updates and newly filed briefs. Argument Preview 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) subjects an individual with three prior convictions for a “violent felony” to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence. On October 6, 2009, in No. 08-6925, Johnson v. United States, the Court will consider whether, for purposes of the ACCA, a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state’s highest court has held that the offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.' Background In 2007, petitioner Charles Darnell Johnson pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Based on its determination that Mr. Johnson had three earlier convictions for violent felonies, the district court sentenced him to 185 months in prison. Mr. Johnson appealed the court’s determination with respect to his 2002 conviction for “unwanted touching,” which had been elevated from simple battery to felony status because of a prior battery conviction. On appeal, Mr. Johnson argued that federal courts applying the ACCA are bound by the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Hearns (2007), holding that physical force or violence is not a necessary element of simple battery. Thus, the crime of battery does not fit the ACCA’s definition of “violent” crime as one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed Mr. Johnson’s conviction, applying federal law to find that the elements of his crime satisfied the definition of “violent” crime under the ACCA. Mr. Johnson filed a petition for certiorari, which was granted on February 23, 2009.

By on Aug 18, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Weds., Sept. 2 at 9 a.m. : The American Constitution Society will host a press briefing panel on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, moderated by Joan Biskupic of USA Today.  Click here to register and for more information about the panelists. Tues., Sept. 8 at 12 p.m.: The Cato Institute will...