tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39726682011-06-08T02:11:48.642-04:00The Fourteenth CircuitThe Web's premier site for Supreme Court commentary and analysisChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.comBlogger381100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1115845229223908452005-05-11T17:00:00.000-04:002005-05-11T17:22:52.683-04:00Under Reconstruction.Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1088111779824708662004-06-24T17:12:00.000-04:002004-06-24T17:18:07.786-04:00OLSON OUT
Our sources are telling us that Theodore Olson resigned today as Solicitor General of the United States. Olson's wife Barabara was a passenger on American Airlines flight 77 when Muslin extremists crashed the plane into the Pentagon during the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Olson has been an able and effective advocate before the Supreme Court since President Bush appointed him as Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1088111109718307732004-06-24T17:04:00.000-04:002004-06-24T17:39:46.940-04:00MEDIA BIAS ALERT
We'll let the Associated Press's blatant partisan bias speak for itself:
Chief Justice H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed with Scalia. On the other side were four of the court's more moderate justices: John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Unbelievable.
UPDATE: Subsequent Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1088110773011752742004-06-24T16:50:00.000-04:002004-06-24T17:04:18.850-04:00SUPREME COURT ROUND-UP
Today's five Supreme Court decisions leave seven to be decided this Term. The Court will issue decisions in some or all of these cases on Monday.
The seven remaining cases (and the sittings in which they were argued) are the three terrorism-related cases (Apr.), Sosa (Alien Tort Statute) (Mar.), Ashcroft v. ACLU (Child Online Pornography Act) (Feb.), and two Miranda Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1087838099986538122004-06-21T13:09:00.000-04:002004-06-21T13:14:59.986-04:00COUNTING DOWN
The four relatively uneventful Supreme Court cases decided today (by Ginsburg, Thomas (2) and Kennedy) leave twelve to be decided this Term, with the Court coming back on Thursday of this week to issue more opinions.
The twelve cases (and the sittings in which they were argued) are the three terrorism-related cases (Apr.), Sosa (the Alien Tort Statute case) (Mar.), the Cheney Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1087827373296967882004-06-21T10:06:00.000-04:002004-06-24T17:36:08.460-04:00WHEN LEGAL MINDS GO MAD
The New York Sun reports on a speech given yesterday by Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi:
WASHINGTON — A prominent federal judge has told a conference of liberal lawyers that President Bush’s rise to power was similar to the accession of dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler.
“In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States…somebody came to power as Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1081111831147797692004-04-04T16:37:00.000-04:002004-04-04T20:17:40.076-04:00RECUSE THYSELF
Up until to now, we have chosen not to weigh in on the demands for Justice Scalia's recusal in Cheney v. U.S. District Court. Those demands are so frivolous, and the media-manufactured "controversy" so transparently political, that we saw nothing to add to the Justice's own typically irrefutable arguments. Kudos, therefore, to William Safire for being the first commentator to Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1081108615443705712004-04-04T15:44:00.000-04:002004-04-04T20:17:58.390-04:00ELECTION 2004
While the three or four vacancies expected during the 2001-2005 presidential term have not yet materialized, it is hard to imagine that all nine justices will remain on the bench through January 2009. Accordingly, the 2004 presidential election is likely to have a direct bearing on the Court's composition and therefore, in this government as much of men as of laws, on the state ofChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-1056722328638443912003-06-27T09:58:00.000-04:002003-06-27T09:58:49.383-04:00MORE ON THE ACTIVIST COURT
In an online Slate dialogue, attorney Walter Dellinger echoes the Fourteenth Circuit's assessment of the Supreme Court's recent left-wing activism, noting a "stunning" and "remarkable" number of activist decisions (Dellinger calls them "progressive") this Term. Of course, such decisions are a surprise only to someone who has not been paying attention for the past ten Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-959601212003-06-23T18:00:00.000-04:002003-06-23T21:24:22.000-04:00SHAM DEMOCRACY
We share the sentiment of one of our readers, who writes: "Every June reveals American democracy for the sham that it is. I despise the role of the Supreme Court in our society."Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-959599992003-06-23T17:56:00.000-04:002003-06-23T18:06:06.000-04:00THE ACTIVIST COURT
There seems to be no stopping point for the recent liberal activism of the Rehnquist Court. This Term alone, the Court has extended the federal Enforcement Clause power-grab far beyond the limits set by the Voting Rights Act cases decided by the Warren and Burger Courts, has upheld a racially discriminatory admissions program functionally indistinguishable from the one Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-954731872003-06-09T13:52:00.000-04:002003-06-09T14:35:16.000-04:00SUPREME COURT COUNTDOWN
Following today's five entirely uninteresting dispositions, the Supreme Court has fourteen argued cases left to be decided this Term. Here is a brief description of what is left, along with the always hazardous attempt to predict authorship based on who has written so far:
February 24 Session (2 cases remaining)
Sell v. United States: Constitutional challenge to theChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-952032192003-06-02T15:03:00.000-04:002003-06-02T15:15:27.000-04:00FIRST MONDAY ROUND-UP
A disappointing first Monday in June, although the opinions in three argued cases and one summary reversal turned out to be somewhat more interesting than it originally appeared. The per curiam summary reversal, in the context of a claim for arbitration under the FAA, contains a nice Commerce Clause discussion that unfortunately smacks down the Alabama Supreme Court for Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-950979292003-05-30T17:52:00.000-04:002003-05-30T17:58:28.000-04:00DOUBTING THOMAS
Commenting on Jay Nordlinger's pitch for Justice Thomas to be nominated as the Supreme Court’s next chief justice, the American Constitution Society blasts Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez as representative of a jurisprudence allegedly "detached from reality, rigid, and . . . extreme." Apart from taking quotes out of context (thereby making Justice Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-950901992003-05-30T14:09:00.000-04:002003-05-30T16:07:13.000-04:00FREE ESTRADA
The results of the Circuit's Supreme Court nominations poll are in, and in them can be seen an overwhelming rejection of the Democratic Party's strategy of filibustering the circuit court nomination of Miguel Estrada. While Senate Democratics hoped their filibuster would convince Americans that the Honduran-born Estrada does not deserve to be a federal judge, the filibuster has in Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-950431592003-05-29T13:54:00.000-04:002003-05-29T16:14:53.000-04:00GOEDEL'S LAST THEOREM UPDATE
Timothy Sandefur offers a new suggestion regarding the mystery of Goedel's Last Theorem, which has been an issue of longstanding interest to the Circuit. Sandefur suggests that Goedel may have been revisiting Alexis de Tocqueville's famous concerns about the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority." Sandefur observes that despite the elaborate checks and Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-950103052003-05-28T19:09:00.000-04:002003-05-28T19:09:56.066-04:00VOICE YOUR OPINION
Whom should President Bush nominate to fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy at the end of this Term? Without getting too specific, the word around town is that certain influential members of the administration regularly monitor the Fourteenth Circuit to keep in touch with the street sentiment of jurisprudential moderates. Let the administration know who should be tapped Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-949627432003-05-27T19:43:00.000-04:002003-05-27T19:43:50.666-04:00STRATEGIC VOTING?
More than one of our readers have suggested that because the final vote to uphold the FMLA was 6-3, Chief Justice Rehnquist's disappointing vote in Hibbs may have been the result of the Chief's desire to control the assignment of the opinion and thereby prevent an even broader eviseration of Flores authored by a Justice less solicitous of State sovereingty. That theory would Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-949498202003-05-27T14:05:00.000-04:002003-05-27T16:02:46.000-04:00THE CHIEF'S BETRAYAL
Although we predicted otherwise, the Fourteenth Circuit is not entirely surprised that Justice O'Connor -- heretofore one of the leaders of the now apparently defunct federalism revolution of the Rehnquist Court -- got cold feet and voted in Nevada Department of Human Resouces v. Hibbs to uphold the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as a valid exercise of Congress's power Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-861774372002-12-17T13:46:00.000-05:002002-12-18T12:04:02.000-05:00BLACKSTONE ANTICIPATES MANDUMBASS
Our friends at the Statutory Construction Zone have written to call our attention to an ancient common law antecedent to the Fourteenth Circuit's writ of mandumbass, issued periodically to news outlets confusing denials of certiorari with merits adjudications. William Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I, ch. 8 documents the related common law writ de indiota Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-858618652002-12-11T18:08:00.000-05:002002-12-12T10:39:26.000-05:00ABDUR'RAHMAN UPDATE
One of our readers, a federal district court law clerk, provides some practical feedback:
"Rule 60(b) is the most favorite rule of all prisoners. It is their way of repeatedly asking for a motion for reconsideration and repeated bugging the court so they can get some mail in return. We have often treated Rule 60(b)s as successive habeas petitions because the prisoner Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-858616852002-12-11T18:04:00.000-05:002002-12-12T11:57:50.000-05:00UNRINGING THE BELL
An interesting development yesterday was the Court's DIG of Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, No. 01-9094, and Justice Stevens's dissent therefrom. The case would have resolved whether a Rule 60(b) motion (to overturn a final judgment) in the context of a federal habeas proceeding must as a matter of law be treated as a "second or successive" habeas petition. The question is an Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-858609922002-12-11T17:49:00.000-05:002002-12-11T18:13:14.000-05:00BAKED BEAN
The highlight of the day yesterday was Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court in United States v. Bean, No. 01-704. Bean properly holds that an agency's non-action on a relief application does not constitute a merits "'denial" for purposes of a statutory judicial review provision. It certainly would have been understandable for Justice Thomas to have strained to find jurisdiction in Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-851778312002-11-27T15:38:00.000-05:002002-11-27T18:49:47.000-05:00SITE UPDATE
Help the Fourteenth Circuit crack the mystery of Goedel's Last Theorem on the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Circuit's classic article on this legal puzzle is now available in the archives.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-851145352002-11-26T11:39:00.000-05:002002-11-26T13:29:02.000-05:00FIRST MONDAY LIMERICK CONTEST
Readers of the old version of this site will recall that we were big fans of the now-cancelled CBS television series "First Monday." Taking our cue from Justice Hoskins's penchant for limerick poetry, and in honor of the show's realistic and even-handed treatment of Supreme Court practice, we ran a contest just before our hiatus for best Supreme Court limerick. Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850632072002-11-25T12:42:00.000-05:002003-05-28T19:14:17.000-04:00TRIUMPHAL RETURN
After a year's adjournment, the Fourteenth Circuit -- the first Supreme Court commentary web log -- announces its return. Stay tuned to the Circuit to read quick and accurate analysis of Supreme Court developments.
In the meantime, for those new to the Fourteenth Circuit, we've reposted in the archives a sampling of our past commentary. Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850629302002-11-25T12:37:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:03:37.000-05:00STATEMENT RESPECTING STATEMENT RESPECTING DENIAL OF WRIT (originally posted 10/15/01)
It is not every day that you see four justices joining a written opinion in effect opposing a denial of certiorari. Yet today we have Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter, opining that cert. should be granted in Overton v. Ohio, No. 00-9769, and the case summarily reversed as Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850627112002-11-25T12:31:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:18:15.000-05:00POP QUIZ (originally posted 6/29/01)
Quick -- name a recent case in which a court rewrote a statute by inverting the meanings of "may" and "shall not" and adding to the statute an artificial cut-off date that it manufactured from whole cloth. Okay, you get full credit if your answer was the SCOFFLAw's first decision in Bush v. Gore. But we were actually thinking of Zadvydas v. Davis, Nos. 99-Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850624462002-11-25T12:26:00.000-05:002002-11-26T11:46:57.000-05:00BIG DAY IN WASHINGTON (originally posted 6/28/01)
Today was scheduled to be the last day of the current Supreme Court Term, and the Court delivered a mixed bad of results with its final four opinions. The Fourteenth Circuit is pleased to see the High Court's aggressive enforcement of what command-economy liberals certainly view as two of the Bill of Rights's ugly stepchildren -- the right not Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850622782002-11-25T12:22:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:05:24.000-05:00HABEAS HOCUS POCUS (originally posted 6/26/01)
There's really not much to say about INS v. St. Cyr, No. 00-767, beyond the glaringly obvious points set out so ably by Justice Scalia in dissent. But we can't resist recapping some of the highlights of the Court's "reasoning." The Court is in rare form.
Justice Stevens has his work cut out for him in having to reach the conclusion that habeas isMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850619302002-11-25T12:15:00.000-05:002002-11-26T11:50:17.000-05:00WRIT OF MANDUMBASS TO THE WASHINGTON POST (originally posted 3/5/01)
Mandumbass is an extraordinary writ issued periodically by the Fourteenth Circuit to news outlets that report denials of certiorari as if they were affirmances on the merits. Today's writ is issued to the Washington Post for its article, "Klan's Right to Participate in Mo. Program Upheld." That article "informs" its readers Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850618032002-11-25T12:12:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:22:26.000-05:00JUSTICE BREYER LANGUAGE-WATCH UPDATE! (originally posted 6/18/01)
Consider the following difficult question of statutory interpretation: Does a statute governing "State executive and legislative elections" apply to federal elections for United States Senator? We would have thought the answer was obvious, but Justices Breyer and Ginsburg continue to struggle in their ongoing effort to recognizeMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850615902002-11-25T12:07:00.000-05:002002-11-26T11:53:10.000-05:00HIGH KYLLO-WATT LAMPS (originally posted 6/11/01)
It's never a pleasant task for any right-thinking person to have to pick between (1) supporting a loophole-lawyer's effort to loose a criminal, and (2) disagreeing with Justice Scalia. So it is with some trepidation that we have to criticize the Court's holding today in Kyllo v. United States, No. 99-8508, the marijuana-lamps surveillance case.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850612612002-11-25T12:00:00.000-05:002002-11-26T11:54:19.000-05:00THE KING'S ENGLISH (originally posted 6/11/01)
The Court handed down the Don King RICO case today, unanimously holding that the plaintiff has made adequate "enterprise"-related allegations. Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, No. 00-549.
For some reason, Justice Breyer feels the need to explain repeatedly that he is construing the RICO statute as an English-language document. See slip opMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850608932002-11-25T11:52:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:26:38.000-05:00POLLARD WANTS A COHERENT RATIONALE (originally posted 6/4/01)
The good news is that the Court got it right today in ruling that "front pay" awards are not subject to the $300,000 cap in Title VII cases. Pollard v. E.I. de Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 00-763. The bad news is, well, everything else in the opinion.
The Court holds that a "front pay" award is not compensatory (slip op. at 1, 9). Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850606102002-11-25T11:46:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:27:58.000-05:00RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN GOLF LAW (originally posted 5/29/01)
Golf lawyers reading today's decision in PGA v. Martin, No. 00-24, have understandably focused on the Court's bombshell holding that walking is an inessential element of tournament gold. Less noticed, however, are a number of important aspects of that case that could substantially affect the development of gold law in the years to comeMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00820229316800111239noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850398282002-11-25T00:23:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:28:55.000-05:00MAD HATTER (originally posted 5/21/01)
Justice Scalia properly rejected the majority's "discrimination" rationale in United States v. Hatter, No. 99-1978, the judicial pay-raise case under the Compensation Clause that the Court handed down today. But how is this aspect of Justice Scalia's opinion to be squared with his joining of the majority's mootness holding in Part V? The key paragraph in Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972668.post-850398182002-11-25T00:22:00.000-05:002002-11-25T17:31:27.000-05:00THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN (originally posted 5/01)
If only the Constitution had a good index, he could see that "abortion" doesn't occur anywhere in it . . . .
From the Boston Globe:
"Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School: Although I'm a well-informed and highly educated reader, I experience enormous frustration, especially on Sundays, in locating things within the Globe. Today, I wanted to know Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405295411887311499noreply@blogger.com0