Why Justice Kagan May Need to Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case

Does First Amendment protect students’ online speech off-campus?

Paul Clement at Center of Supreme Court’s Blockbuster Cases

Court angst for left over healthcare

Supreme Court rejects appeals in student speech cases

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List

Supreme Court to consider educators’ response to cyber-bullying

On health reform, the election will matter more than SCOTUS

Supreme Court Hears Case Of Workers Fighting Union Over Dues Spent On Political Effort

U.S. Supreme Court justices leery of FOX request to relax broadcast decency standards

Is The Obama Admin Trying To Box In Scalia On The Health Care Mandate?

    TPMDC: In its amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court Friday, the Justice Department cited no fewer than 10 times the 2005 Gonzalez v. Raich case, in which Scalia (and Justice Anthony Kennedy) broke with the court’s conservative wing to hand down what scholars viewed as one of the broadest declarations of federal power under the Commerce Clause: a 6-3 ruling decreeing that Congress may ban a medical-marijuana patient from growing cannabis for personal use in California where it’s legal.


  • Posted: 01/11/2012
  • |
  • Category: Featured
  • |
  • Source: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

  • Tags: , , ,

High court backs foreign campaign contribution ban

Legal Periodical: Justice Ginsburg and Religious Liberty

Obama administration defends healthcare law in Supreme Court brief

SCOTUS expected to weigh Montana campaign finance appeal

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Gingrich threats a dark omen for courts?

Supreme Court takes up Idaho wetlands property rights dispute

A Federal Judge Responds Defiantly to Chief Justice Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts defends Justices’ ethics

    Reacting to critics of the Supreme Court who have raised their voices lately about the Justices’ ethical values, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., used his year-end report on Saturday to seek to reassure the nation that he and his eight colleagues are sensitive to the issue, and are entitled to the public’s confidence in their integrity.


  • Posted: 01/03/2012
  • |
  • Category: Featured
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , ,

Thomas Messner: ADF Seeks Supreme Court Review for Christian Student Groups | Heritage Foundation

U.S. Supreme Court: February and March calendars — day by day

Challenging college to be ‘marketplace of ideas’ | One News Now

3 days of argument on health care

ADF asks U.S. Supreme Court to reverse ruling that excludes religious groups from college campuses

U.S. Supreme Court redistricting orders create political ‘nightmare’ in Texas

DOJ Memo: Solicitor General Kagan ‘Substantially Participated’ in Obamacare-Related Case

Lyle Denniston: Political Trouble Ahead for the Supreme Court

Can Congress Require Cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court?

Redistricting Orders Throw Texas Politics Into Disarray — Redistricting

    The Texas Tribune: Forget everything. The candidate announcements, the relocations, the decisions not to run again, the who vs. who vs. who and the campaign finance. Poof! With a one-paragraph order on Friday night, the U.S. Supreme Court froze the Texas congressional and legislative elections and replaced pre-holiday candidate filings, politicking and fundraising with uncertainty and chaos.


  • Posted: 12/12/2011
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.texastribune.org

  • Tags: , ,

Kagan recuses from Arizona immigration case

Supreme Court agrees to hear Arizona immigration case & order list

GOP questions ‘two-month gap’ in Kagan’s health care involvement

Senate Debates Cameras in Court Ahead of ACA Hearings

Analysis: If the health insurance mandate falls…

Supreme Court Allows Ban on Church Services in School | The New American

Supreme Court won’t protect religious worship at schools | Deseret News

Supreme Court ignores discrimination against religious groups in public schools | LifeSiteNews

NYC Ban on After-School Worship Services Stands | ABC (AP)

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on use of N.Y. schools for worship | Digital Journal

“High court permits NYC schools to ban churches” | Baptist Press/Fox News Commentary

High court denies appeal of church ban at public schools | World Mag

Bronx Church’s Petition to Worship in Public Schools Denied by Supreme Court

Ruling goes against church meetings at schools | OneNewsNow.com

Tiny church in NYC awaiting Supreme Court decision | WSJ.com

Lamar Smith: The White House needs to come clean on Elena Kagan and the Affordable Care Act

Supreme Court refuses to resolve confusion over restitution for child porn victims

Health-care case brings fight over which Supreme Court justices should decide it

Supreme Court refuses to hear Alameda books sexually oriented businesses case; no action in Bronx Household of Faith

Justice accused of withholding records on Kagan’s role in healthcare defense

Measuring Justice Sotomayor’s Liberal Bona Fides

Analysis: Health care’s “sleeper issue”

    SCOTUSblog: This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog will publish over the next several weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of that law. This article deals with whether any challenger to the new law’s individual mandate should have been allowed in court to try to overturn the mandate and its attached penalty. That is an issue that potentially could postpone for at least four years a decision on the constitutionality of the mandate.


  • Posted: 11/22/2011
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , ,

Senate GOP Leaders To Holder: Your Kagan Testimony ‘Belied By The Facts’

GOP Senators Join Call for Kagan Recusal as Required By Law

Supreme Court appoints lawyers to argue healthcare positions neither party supports

Dems ramp up attacks on Justice Thomas ahead of health law ruling

Will the Necessary & Proper clause save Obamacare? Not if the Court follows McCulloch v. Maryland

    Dave Kopel at The Volokh Conspiracy: In short, the Necessary and Proper Clause expressed the well-known agency law doctrine of principals and incidents. That is, the grant of power to an agent (and the federal government was an agent of the people, to exercise certain delegated powers) was considered to include incidental powers. (Unless the parties specified to the contrary.) To be an incidental power, a power had to be subsidiary to, inferior to, and “less worthy” (in the language of the time) than the principal power.


  • Posted: 11/18/2011
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: volokh.com

  • Tags: , , ,

NY Times calls on Supreme Court to allow TV coverage in Obamacare case

Supreme Court must rule: Obamacare sets dangerous precedent for freedom

Justice Breyer urges checking presidential power

Child Sexual Abuse and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Recusal Question | WSJ Video

Plea for TV of health care hearings