Amy Howe

Jan 17 2017

No new grants, but a significant CVSG

Last week the justices added a whopping 16 new cases to their merits docket when they issued orders from the January 13 conference. When the justices returned from the holiday weekend this morning, they issued more orders from that conference, including a call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in a pair of related cases, but did not grant any new cases.

The invitation to the federal government to file a brief came in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The two cases have their roots in a federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate sports betting. After the New Jersey legislature passed a law that would allow sports betting in casinos and racetracks in the state, professional sports leagues and the NCAA filed a lawsuit, arguing that the state law runs afoul of the PASPA. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and a horseracing group that operates a racetrack in the state counter that the PASPA unconstitutionally “commandeers” the state’s regulatory power. There is no deadline for the federal government to submit its brief, which will almost certainly be filed by the new solicitor general (or acting solicitor general) in the Trump administration. If the Supreme Court were to grant review, the case would likely be argued next term, at which point the court is likely to have a ninth justice.

The court did not act on the challenge to a Texas law that requires voters to present specific forms of government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot. The justices had first considered the petition for review at their January 6 conference and then relisted the case for further consideration at their January 13 conference.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices rule Minnesota county violated takings clause
  • Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act
  • Justices rule on challenge to FDIC order
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Justices rule Minnesota county violated takings clause
  • Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act
  • Reading the tea leaves — Part 1
  • Justices rule on challenge to FDIC order
  • Court dismisses Title 42 case
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies