This afternoon the justices issued additional orders from their October 7 conference, adding three new hours of oral argument to their merits docket for the term. And if there is a public perception that the justices have been avoiding controversial issues since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, today’s order list belied… Read More
Argument analysis: Court poised to strike down state ruling barring evidence of juror bias?
Today the justices heard oral argument in the case of Miguel Pena-Rodriguez, a Colorado man who was convicted of assaulting two teenage sisters at a racetrack. After the jury issued its verdict, Pena-Rodriguez’s lawyers learned that one juror, a former police officer, had made racially derogatory comments about Pena-Rodriguez and the witness who provided his… Read More
No grants from morning orders
The Supreme Court did not add any new cases to its merits docket this morning. The most noteworthy part of this morning’s order list was a per curiam decision in Bosse v. Oklahoma, a death penalty case. Twenty-five years ago, in Payne v. Tennessee, the court ruled that the Constitution does not bar a jury… Read More
Argument analysis: The “friends and family” solution on insider trading
Today the justices heard oral argument in the case of Bassam Salman, the Chicago grocery wholesaler who was convicted of insider trading after he made thousands of dollars trading on stock tips from Michael Kara. Michael obtained the tips from his brother Maher Kara, a Citigroup investment banker who was married to Salman’s sister. The… Read More
Argument preview: Justices to consider racial bias in jury deliberations
When the justices return to the bench today, they will hear oral arguments in the case of Texas death-row inmate Duane Buck. Buck’s challenge to his sentence stems from testimony at his sentencing hearing, where a psychologist hired by his own lawyers told jurors that blacks are statistically more likely to be dangerous. The issue… Read More
Argument analysis: Something for both sides in bank fraud argument
After slightly less than an hour of oral arguments in the case of Lawrence Shaw, who was convicted on bank fraud charges after he stole over $300,000 from Stanley Hsu’s checking account, it seemed clear that, although Shaw and other similarly situated defendants would lose the war, Shaw could at least win the battle. The… Read More
Justices add eight new cases to docket for upcoming term
The official start to the Supreme Court’s new term will come on Monday, when the eight justices will convene for a non-argument session at 10 a.m. But the unofficial start came at 9:30 a.m. this morning, when the justices released an initial round of orders from their September 26 conference, which was the first conference… Read More
Eight women slated to argue in October sitting
Last term I repeatedly lamented the dearth of female advocates arguing at the court — and, in particular, the infrequency with which women from private law firms appeared. The October hearing list has been released, and things are already off to a much better start. Three different women from private law firms will argue: Lisa… Read More
Argument preview: Justices to consider what constitutes a “personal benefit” in insider trading
It’s the 1980s all over again – shoulder pads, synthesizers, bomber jackets and insider trading. But in 2016, the defendant in the biggest insider trading case of the year isn’t a high-profile Wall Street denizen like Ivan Boesky or “junk bond king” Michael Milken: The main character in this story is a Chicago grocery wholesaler… Read More
Argument preview: Court to consider scope of federal bank-fraud statute
The justices of the Supreme Court normally return to the bench to hear the first oral arguments of the new term on the first Monday in October. But this year “First Monday” coincides with Rosh Hashanah, so oral arguments in the October Term 2016 won’t actually begin until Tuesday. In the second case that day,… Read More