Posted Tue, April 17th, 2018 7:19 am by way of Edith Roberts
This morning, the court docket will listen oral argument in two circumstances. The first is South Dakota v. Wayfair, by which the justices will rethink a ruling that limits the facility of state governments to require out-of-state on-line shops to assemble tax on gross sales to state citizens. Mark Walsh previewed the case for this weblog. Katherine Thibodeau and Simon Bord have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript supplies a graphic explainer for the case, and the most recent episode of First Mondays (podcast) features a preview. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Abha Battarai file that “[t]he case requires the court to consider whether a decision made in the era of mail-order catalogues still makes sense in a time of one-click shopping, when a website can be more appealing and convenient.” Additional protection comes from Pete Williams at NBC News, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Maria Halkias for The Dallas Morning News, Jessica Gresko on the Associated Press, Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Espresso weblog, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Nina Totenberg at NPR, who stories that “[t]he two sides … agree on almost nothing — not the economic facts, not the amount lost in sales taxes, not even on who is hurt by the court’s prior decisions.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers give a contribution to this weblog in quite a lot of capacities, is likely one of the recommend to the petitioner on this case.]
This morning’s 2nd argument is in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, which asks whether or not a false remark a few unmarried asset could be a remark respecting the debtor’s monetary situation that precludes the release of a debt in chapter. Danielle D’Onfro had this weblog’s preview. Connor O’Neil and Abigail Yeo preview the case for Cornell. Subscript’s graphic explainer is right here.
Yesterday the court docket issued orders from the justices’ personal convention final Friday. Amy Howe covers the order checklist for this weblog; her protection first gave the impression at Howe at the Court. For the Chicago Tribune, Jason Meisner stories that the justices “for the second time rejected an appeal by imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of his convictions on corruption charges.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers give a contribution to this weblog in quite a lot of capacities, is likely one of the recommend to the petitioner on this case.] At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley stories that the justices additionally “turned down a First Amendment challenge to a noise provision of Maine’s civil rights law used to police abortion clinic protests.”
Daniel Hemel has this weblog’s research of the day before today’s argument in Wisconsin Central Ltd.v. United States, which asks whether or not inventory choices are taxable repayment underneath the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. At Law360 (subscription required), Amy Lee Rosen stories that “[a]ttorneys for subsidiaries of a Canadian railroad company and the federal government each tried to persuade the [justices] to find their interpretation of ‘money remuneration’ under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act appropriate as it related to whether more than $13 million in stock options were considered taxable.”
Yesterday’s 2nd argument used to be in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., by which the justices regarded as whether or not damages for infringement of a home patent in another country come with misplaced earnings for in another country contracts the patentholder would have bought if the infringement had no longer befell. Ronald Mann analyzes the argument for this weblog. In an op-ed for The Hill, Charles Duan argues that “allowing for worldwide damages would make it more risky, from a patent liability standpoint, to do research and development in the United States, thus pushing research into foreign nations.”
- For The New York Times, Adam Liptak observes that during Trump v. Hawaii, a problem to the most recent model of the Trump management’s access ban, which “is likely to yield a major statement on presidential power,” “the justices will act within the shadow of their very own choice in Korematsu v. United States, which recommended Roosevelt’s 1942 order [interning over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry] and is sort of universally seen as a shameful mistake.”
- At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in two circumstances involving the federal sentencing tips, Koons v. United States and Hughes v. United States.
- At The Ringer, Danny Heifetz gives a primer on Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional problem to the federal ban on sports activities making a bet.
- At the Maryland Appellate Blog, Michael Wein discusses the pending cert petition in Bostic v. Dunbar, which raises an Eighth Amendment problem to the 241-year sentence Bostic won in 1997 for a chain of armed robberies he dedicated when he used to be 16 years outdated.
- At FiveThirtyEight, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux explores the concerns that can affect Justice Anthony Kennedy’s choice about whether or not “to retire when the term recesses in June,” noting that Kennedy “is in a particularly difficult position because he holds an unusual amount of power on the current court, and he has good reason to be concerned that a Trump-appointed successor might undermine key parts of his judicial legacy.”
We depend on our readers to ship us hyperlinks for our round-up. If you might have or know of a contemporary (printed within the final two or 3 days) article, submit, podcast, or op-ed when it comes to the Supreme Court that you simply’d like us to believe for inclusion within the round-up, please ship it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
SCOTUSblog (Apr. 17, 2018, 7:19 AM),