SCOTUScast

On November 12, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which was consolidated with Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama. -- These cases ask whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans classify black voters by race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by intentionally packing them into districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark Braden, who is Of Counsel at Baker & Hostetler.

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jennings v. Stephens. The issue in this case involves a federal habeas petitioner who sought relief based upon three theories of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court granted relief on two theories but rejected the third. The question in this case was whether the prisoner must file a separate notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability in order to rely upon his third theory (which the district court had rejected) in defending against the State’s appeal. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the prisoner in this case was not required to file a cross-appeal or seek a certificate of appealability to rely on his third theory on appeal, because the theory was a defense of a favorable judgment below on alternate grounds. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of Jennings' third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. -- To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. This case involves two questions. The first question is whether the statute of limitations for a claim of civil fraud against the federal government brought by a relator (private individual bringing suit on behalf of the government) can be indefinitely tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act. The second question asks whether the False Claims Act's "first-to-file" rule, which presents an incentive for relators to be the first to bring claims of fraud, simply requires that only one case can be pending at a time or requires that once a case has been filed, all cases based upon the same facts and alleging the same type of fraud are barred. -- To discuss the case, we have Justin Walker, who is currently executive director of the Global Game Changers Children's Education Initiative. This year he will join the faculty at the University of Louisville as an Assistant Professor of Law.

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell. This case concerns whether a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but listing no reasons for the denial, can satisfy the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that the written document issued by a state or local government denying the application for a cell tower does not need to contain the reasons for denial as long as the reasons for denial appear in some other written record, are clearly written, and are accessible to the applicant essentially contemporaneously with the written denial notice. -- Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion which Justice Ginsburg joined in full and which Justice Thomas joined as to Part 1. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan Brown, who is a partner at WileyRein.

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. This case asks whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Ed Whelan who is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Erik Jaffe, who is a sole practitioner at Erik S. Jaffe, PC.

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Holt v. Hobbs, which concerns whether the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy, which generally prohibits inmates from growing beards save for a narrow health-based exception, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by impermissibly burdening the religious liberty of a Muslim inmate seeking to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court unanimously held that the Arkansas prison’s grooming policy, as applied in this case, violated RLUIPA because it substantially burdened the prisoner’s religious exercise and was not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s security needs. -- Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Sotomayor also filed a concurring opinion. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Jordan Lorence, who is senior counsel and senior vice-president of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for Alliance Defending Freedom.

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Gelboim v. Bank of America Corporation. This case concerns whether and in what circumstances the dismissal of all claims in one civil action that had been consolidated with other cases for pre-trial purposes, in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding, is final and immediately appealable? -- In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that a lower court order dismissing petitioners' case in its entirety removed petitioners from the consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding, thereby triggering their statutory right to appeal. The judgment of the Second Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. -- To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an Olin-Searle-Smith Fellow and Constitutional Law Center Fellow at Stanford Law School.

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. This case involves the Fair Housing Act, which states that it is illegal to "refuse to sell or rent...or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race." The question in this case is whether disparate impact claims, which permit liability based on disproportionate impact in the absence of express discriminatory intent, are allowed under the Fair Housing Act. -- To discuss the case, we have Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation.

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit. -- To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heien v. North Carolina, the question in this case was whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of a law can provide the reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. -- In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. The decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was affirmed. -- To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.