ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 
Published: May 20, 2013
Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
Does a legislative prayer practice violate the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity?
See “Court takes up constitutionality of town meeting prayer.”
Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696.Certiorari granted: May 20, 2013.
» Continue Reading.
Supreme Court treads carefully in patent ruling
By:
Kimberly Atkins
Published: May 15, 2013
Tags: agricultural engineering, first sale doctrine, patent exhastion, patents, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s surgically narrow ruling prohibiting a farmer from using seeds harvested from patented herbicide-resistant soybeans has left lawyers with more questions than answers about the extent of patent owners’ rights in other emerging, self-replicating technologies.
INDIGENT DEFENSE
Published: May 13, 2013
Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
Did the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals err in holding that the in forma pauperis statute prohibits indigent plaintiffs from amending their complaints?
Burnside v. Walters, No. 12-7892.Certiorari granted: May 13, 2013. Ruling below: Unpublished, 2012.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Published: May 13, 2013
Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not preempt state-law claims stemming from the storage and disposal of a towed vehicle.
U.S. Supreme Court. Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, No. 12-52. May 13, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3993.
Warrantless blood test ruling gives defense bar new ammo
By:
Kimberly Atkins
Published: May 1, 2013
Tags: blood alcohol content, Fourth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court, warrantless search
WASHINGTON – The effect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling rejecting a per se rule allowing warrantless blood testing in suspected drunken driving cases will be felt far beyond DUI cases, defense attorneys said.
Supreme Court passes on Alabama immigration case
Published: April 30, 2013
Tags: Criminal Law, Employment Law, immigration, preemption, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court ruling striking down portions of Alabama’s immigration law, one of the most restrictive in the nation.
Court dismisses ineffective counsel case
Published: April 29, 2013
Tags: dismissal, improvidentally granted, indigent defense, Sixth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – After taking up and hearing arguments in a case considering whether a delay caused by a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent’s defense should be a factor in determining whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to reverse recess appointment ruling
Published: April 26, 2013
Tags: Congress, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, NLRB, recess appointments, U.S. Supreme Court, White House
WASHINGTON – Saying that the ruling unduly restricts presidential authority, the Obama administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal appellate court decision invalidating last year’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
Mixed feelings in mixed-motive Title VII case
By:
Kimberly Atkins
Published: April 24, 2013
Tags: employment discrimination, mixed-motive retaliation, Title VII, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to have mixed feelings about allowing an employee asserting a Title VII-based retaliation claim to prove that his complaint of discrimination was one motivating factor for the employer’s adverse action rather than the but-for cause.
Court finds defendant’s retro plea a tough sell
By:
Kimberly Atkins
Published: April 24, 2013
Tags: criminal defense, diminished capacity, due process, Michigan, retroactive law, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – Can a common practice in criminal defense trigger constitutional protections when it’s suddenly changed?
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t seem to think so, at least in the context of Metrish v. Lancaster, which was argued Wednesday.
