Live blog of orders and opinions with First Mondays (Update: Completed)

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Live blog of orders and opinions with First Mondays (Update: Completed)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 14 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices granted certiorari in five cases: Sturgeon v. FrostGarza v. IdahoLorenzo v. SECTimbs v. Indiana and Apple v. Pepper.

The justices released their decisions in Rosales-Mireles v. United StatesChavez-Meza v. United StatesLozman v. Riviera BeachGill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone.

Dan Epps and Ian Samuel of First Mondays guest-blogged from 9 to 9:30 a.m.

The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.

 

The post Live blog of orders and opinions with First Mondays (Update: Completed) appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

This week at the court

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

This week at the court

On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the June 14 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices granted certiorari in five cases: Sturgeon v. Frost, Garza v. Idaho, Lorenzo v. SEC, Timbs v. Indiana and Apple v. Pepper.

The justices released their decisions in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, Chavez-Meza v. United States, Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone.

On Thursday, there is a possibility of opinions at 10 a.m. The justices will meet for their June 21 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference will be available soon.

The post This week at the court appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released opinions in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.

The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.

The post Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed) appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 7 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices called for the views of the solicitor general in three cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Sudan v. Owens, Opati v. Sudan and Sudan v. Opati.

The justices also released their decisions in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph InstituteSveen v. Melin, China Agritech Inc. v. Resh and Washington v. United States.

The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.

The post Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed) appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

This week at the court

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

This week at the court

On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the June 7 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices called for the views of the solicitor general in three cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Sudan v. Owens, Opati v. Sudan and Sudan v. Opati.

The justices also released their decisions in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph InstituteSveen v. MelinChina Agritech Inc. v. Resh and Washington v. United States.

There is a possibility of opinions on Thursday, and the justices will meet for their June 14 conference. Our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference will be available soon.

The post This week at the court appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Sotomayor promotes new law clerk hiring plan at ACS convention

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Sotomayor promotes new law clerk hiring plan at ACS convention

At the American Constitution Society’s National Convention today, Justice Sonia Sotomayor promoted a new hiring plan for federal law clerks.

Sotomayor promised to “raise an eyebrow and act accordingly” if she receives applications that don’t follow the plan, which sets a schedule for clerk hiring after a law student’s second year and eliminates “exploding” clerkship offers. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan have also voiced support for the plan.

An ad hoc committee on law clerk hiring, comprised of Chief Judges Merrick Garland, Robert Katzmann, Sidney Thomas and Diane Wood, proposed the plan after a letter signed by more than 100 law school deans indicated that the present practice, in which students are hired for clerkships after their first year, “altered the first-year experience, raised important distributional concerns, and undermined our faculties’ ability to provide judges with the information they need to make wise hiring choices.”

Sotomayor lamented that judges’ failure to follow earlier, similar plans undermined the values of discourse, courtesy and respect that “we’re supposed to try to teach.” Judges send a “poor message” “when we can’t act civilly to each other,” she continued.

As is her custom, Sotomayor walked around the audience. “Hugs are a little tough right now,” she joked, her arm in a sling while she recovers from shoulder surgery after falling at her home this spring. The injury didn’t stop her from exchanging “one-sided hugs” and handshakes with large numbers of people, including former clerks. Some people came ready with books for her to sign.

Sotomayor said that during her confirmation hearing, a friend told her, “This is not about you. This is about my daughter who needs to see somebody like herself be in a position of power.” “What I could give others is being myself,” Sotomayor said she decided, “as genuine as I could with the world.”

Perhaps in that spirit, Sotomayor did not seem shy in her remarks. Asked about a study by Tonja Jacobi and Dylan Schweers finding that the female justices are disproportionately interrupted by their male colleagues and by male advocates, Sotomayor responded, to applause, “Is there a woman in the room who’s ever failed to notice that?”

Sotomayor said she has observed that in conference, a comment by Ginsburg might go unremarked upon by the rest of the justices. But when a male justice makes a similar point, “suddenly they’re perking up.” “That happens routinely,” she reported.

“I give credit to the chief justice,” she continued. Since the study, which has “changed some of the dynamics on the court,” she has “noticed him being more of a referee during arguments,” striving to make sure interrupted questions get answers. Other male justices have apologized as well.

As for the “RBG” documentary, Sotomayor said she “loved it.” “I am shamelessly promoting it,” she continued; it’s “hysterically funny, informative, just plain entertaining.” Her favorite part is “seeing Justice Ginsburg laugh so much.” “She’s not a jokester by personality,” Sotomayor continued. She did reveal one quip Ginsburg made to President Barack Obama when he asked at Justice Elena Kagan’s swearing-in what Ginsburg thought of her new sister justices.

“I love them but I’ll be happier when you give me six more.”

Melissa Murray of UC Berkeley School of Law, who moderated today’s event, observed that while Ginsburg has become “Notorious,” Sotomayor has inspired a “cottage industry” of children’s books. Titles include “Who Is Sonia Sotomayor?,” “I am Sonia Sotomayor” and “Sonia Sotomayor: I’ll Be the Judge of That!

Sotomayor herself is the author of the children’s book “Turning Pages: My Life Story,” as well as an adaptation of her memoir for middle school students. Another children’s book she is writing for next summer features children with different life challenges who together produce a garden. She hopes the book will explain that challenges can also be strengths and that “we build this world together.”

The post Sotomayor promotes new law clerk hiring plan at ACS convention appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Report on judiciary procedures to address workplace misconduct

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Report on judiciary procedures to address workplace misconduct

The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group this week published a final report and executive summary for the Judicial Conference of the United States that examines the procedures to protect the judiciary’s 30,000 employees from inappropriate conduct in the workplace. The working group, comprised of eight federal judges and court administrators, found that “inappropriate conduct, although not pervasive within the Judiciary, is not limited to a few isolated instances.”

“There is room for improvement in terms of both accessibility and transparency,” the report summary continued, “but the most significant challenge to accountability lies in the understandable reluctance of victims, especially law clerks and other temporary employees, to report misconduct.”

The working group, formed at the request of Chief Justice John Roberts, made recommendations that fell into three categories – codes of conduct and guidance documents, procedures for identifying and correcting misconduct, and education and training programs. These proposals all require action by the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts or the Federal Judicial Center.

Even if these bodies adopt the working group’s recommendations, the changes will not automatically apply to the Supreme Court, although they may affect it. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges – which the working group says should, among other changes, make clear that “confidentiality obligations do not prevent any employee … from revealing abuse or reporting misconduct by any person” — does not apply to Supreme Court justices. The justices nevertheless choose to follow its guidance.

Additionally, the judiciary’s two formal mechanisms for reporting misconduct — the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and Employment Dispute Resolution Plans – apply only to the lower courts.

According to Kathy Arberg, the court’s Public Information Officer, the “Supreme Court will consider whether changes are necessary to its policies and practices following the Judicial Conference’s review of the Working Group’s recommendations.”

Roberts established this working group in the wake of allegations last fall against Judge Alex Kozinski. As Dahlia Lithwick reported, “Roberts responded swiftly and forcefully,” addressing sexual harassment in his State of the Judiciary speech at the close of the year and naming this working group within days. Following the formation of the group, Joan Biskupic, after reviewing 5,000 judicial orders arising from misconduct complaints over the past decade, detailed for CNN in January the “largely untold story” of “abuse women have suffered in the nation’s courthouses.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, released a statement lamenting that the report “leaves to other part-time advisory committees the key task of formulating specific policy changes.” “After the Kozinski scandal and other allegations, it was a real chance to undertake reforms. But in too many ways, this vague report kicks the can down the road.”

Grassley has announced a hearing titled “Confronting Sexual Harassment and Other Workplace Misconduct in the Federal Judiciary,” to take place next Wednesday.

Fix the Court, a watchdog group, called for more far-reaching changes than the report recommended, such as “codifying anti-harassment proposals in an updated judicial misconduct law” and including Supreme Court justices “in the definition of who is a ‘judge.’” At the same time, the group commended the judiciary “for taking its charge to improve workplace conduct seriously” and the working group “for ultimately seeking out a diverse set of voices, including past and current law clerks, whose perspectives on improving in-chambers protocols are reflected in the report.”

The post Report on judiciary procedures to address workplace misconduct appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

GDPR and SCOTUSblog

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

GDPR and SCOTUSblog

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation recently went into effect. This regulation addresses the protection, consent and notification of visitors whose personal data are collected by websites. Because we receive traffic from the EU, this regulation applies to us. This post provides an overview of the changes we made in compliance with GDPR.

  • We published an updated privacy policy. Our privacy policy, available at this link, is readily available at the bottom of our webpage.
  • We added an element in the page footer for cookie consent. A cookie is data stored from a website on a user’s computer while the user is browsing. The Twitter sharing feature on our blog posts is one example of how our site uses cookies. We now explicitly alert readers to our use of cookies and ask for their consent, with the possibility of reading our privacy policy. Readers who do not consent can also turn off the use of cookies within their browser.
  • We anonymized IP addresses. An IP or Internet Protocol address is a numeric address given to a computer connected to the internet. We track IP addresses as part of gathering accurate Google Analytics data. We now record the last three digits of IP addresses as 000, so that they cannot be used to identify the location of a computer, the company or organization it belongs to, or where it was registered.
  • We accepted new data retention rules from Google. Technically, our data are stored in Google databases, not our own. Following Google’s general guidelines, these data will be deleted after 26 months.
  • We changed text to include our privacy policy when readers sign up for case alerts. One feature we offer readers is the possibility of receiving email updates about actions in merits cases, including new court filings and blog posts. We have only used these email addresses for the specific case updates to which readers have subscribed. This change is simply to provide access to our privacy policy for readers when they do subscribe.

Any questions or concerns can be sent to feedback [at] scotusblog [dot] com.

The post GDPR and SCOTUSblog appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the May 31 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices granted, vacated and remanded Azar v. Garza and called for the views of the solicitor general in Airline Service Providers Association v. Los Angeles World Airports.

The justices also released their opinions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. ApplingHughes v. U.Sand Koons v. U.S.

The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.

The post Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed) appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

This week at the court

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm.

This week at the court

On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the May 31 conference and opinions in argued cases.

The justices granted, vacated and remanded Azar v. Garza and called for the views of the solicitor general in Airline Service Providers Association v. Los Angeles World Airports.

The justices also released their opinions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. ApplingHughes v. U.Sand Koons v. U.S.

The justices will meet on Thursday for their June 7 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference will be available soon.

The post This week at the court appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more