If the verdict isn’t legit, the jury didn’t acquit.

That was the ruling from the Supreme Court this morning in the case Blueford v. Arizona.  The Court ruled that jurors’ answers to a judge query about deliberations did not amount to an acquittal for Double Jeopardy purposes.

More on that case, as well as today’s RESPA ruling in the case Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. to come on Lawyers USA’s Supreme Court Report.

Are liberal members of Congress and the press trying to influence the outcome of the Supreme Court health care challenge by threatening to call the nation’s chief justice a name?

That is what a Wall Street Journal editorial asserts. And what is  the nasty label that is designed to sway Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.? Activist.

The editorial points to recent press coverage suggesting that overturning the health care law would be a radical move tantamount to reversing New Deal era legislation, as well as recent comments made by  Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor, where he said he hopes Roberts has “a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch.”

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court,” Leahy said.

The full editorial can be found here, and Lawyers USA’s coverage of the Supreme Court, including the health care case, can be found on our Supreme Court Report.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, Monday was a bad day for kids seeking to benefit from their parents, and a good day for a Japanese baseball player.

In three decisions, the court denied social security benefits to children conceived via in vitro fertilization long after the insured father’s death (click here for more), declined to impute a parent’s years of residency to a child who is seeking to avoid deportation (more on that case here), and ruled that a statute allowing recovery for litigation-related interpreter services does not cover document translation (here for more on that case).

But as you know, there are still major cases waiting to come down, including a ruling on whether life sentences for juveniles is constitutional, whether the federal health care law will stand, and whether Arizona had the authority to enact a tough immigration enforcement law.

Bookmark Lawyers USA’s Supreme Court Report as your one-stop spot for all the latest Supreme Court news.

The Supreme Court returns today at 10 a.m. to issue orders and opinions. That means you still have time to wager a guess at how the remaining cases of the term will be decided. The folks at our sister paper Missouri Lawyers Weekly can help you out with that endeavor. They’re hosting a contest to see how well readers can predict the outcomes of ten closely-watched cases. They even have experts, this blogger included, offering thoughts on how the cases could come down.

Cast your votes here.

Poor Justice Stephen G. Breyer just can’t catch a break.

In the last year alone, Breyer suffered a broken collarbone in a bicycle accident, and he was robbed at machete point in his Carribean vacation home. Now comes news that Breyer’s Georgetown home was burglarized earlier this month.

The Washington Post reports that the robbers made off with silver valued at over $3,000. But fear not, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said no Supreme Court-related documents were swiped.

For the latest Supreme Court news, see the Supreme Court Report on Lawyers USA online.

For years, lower courts have been trying to draw the line between reasonable police conduct and the use of excessive force. And now the U.S. Supreme Court could chime in on the matter with a case involving a police officer’s use of a Taser on a pregnant woman.

According to the New York Times, the case involves a woman who was pulled over for a ticket while she was 7 months pregnant. After refusing to sign the ticket or get out of the vehicle when instructed by police, the officer used a Taser on the woman several times.

Now her attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the use of the Taser was excessive, the times reports. (HT: ABA Journal).

Justice Antonin G. Scalia is the U.S. Supreme Court most senior associate justice. But some say that during oral arguments he often assumes another role: chief antagonist to the Obama Administration.

When Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. or other attorneys from the Justice Department argue the federal government’s position at the Court, critics say, Scalia can usually be counted on to fire sharp questions. After the proffered answers are given, Scalia often dismisses them with one of his favorite expressions: “extraordinary!”

“His questions have been increasingly confrontational,” said Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and former Reagan-era solicitor general told Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr.

Scalia’s opposition to the Obama Administration was particularly apparent during the recent marathon oral arguments in the health care case, some observers told Stohr.

“Someone who had just tuned into the health-care argument might get the impression that the court is a much more partisan institution than it actually is,” said David Strauss, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

Despite all the headlines that were made when President Barack Obama voiced his support for same-sex marriage, the views the president expressed were personal and did not reflect the views of the administration. But as major cases involving the rights of same-sex couples to marry and receive federal benefits head to the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration may have to make a more affirmative statement about its official stance on the issue.

Obama, in his comments to ABC News last week, was careful to clarify that he believed that issues involving the legality of same-sex marriage should be worked out state-by-state. A careful parsing of Obama’s words revealed, according to SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, “suggests strongly that he is not committed to making same-sex marriage a right protected by the Constitution.”

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin notes, high profile cases – including the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 – are expected to be taken up by the Supreme Court as soon as later this year. In that case, as well as a case by legally married Massachusetts residents suing to receive federal benefits, could result in increased pressure on the White House.

Should the Court take up the cases, Obama “will surely be asked by advocates for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] rights to support a decision upholding a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would take it out of the hands of the states,” Theodore Olson, one of the attorneys leading the challenge to Prop 8, told the WSJ.

To err is human. But when the nation’s highest court receives erroneous information in a case – and even cites the flawed data in its opinion – what, if anything, should the Court do about it?

That is the situation the Supreme Court is facing now in connection with its ruling in the immigration case Nken v. Holder. In that case Justice Department argued that immigration officials “facilitate” the return of immigrants who successfully appeal removal proceedings. While the Department has since changed its policies to do just that, at the time the argument was made that was not the case.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. cited the claim in the opinion to note that while deportation is a burden, it is not “categorically irreparable.”

Now a group of immigration advocates have filed a letter with the Court asking for it to change its opinion. The coalition – comprised of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the National Immigration law Center, and Public Counsel, among others – said that lower courts are still relying on the erroneous information in the opinion.

The Justice Department filed a letter expressing regret at the situation, but stating that because the opinion matches current policy, no further action is needed.

SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston notes that making changes to opinion after they are issued is rare and can be problematic – particularly when the bound volume of the case is already out. It does occasionally happen, though. The last time was four years ago, when the court changed the wording of a death penalty case Kennedy v. Louisiana.

In the days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the healthcare challenge and again after the Arizona immigration law case, there was a lot of chatter among Court watchers. And a lot of it involved one question: Just how bad was Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.’s performance?

As the New York Times’ Adam Liptak points out in his piece yesterday, Supreme Court oral advocacy is usually not a spectator sport, at least not to the extent that it was when it came to Verrilli’s performance at the podium in March and April. But after the healthcare case, some observers skewered his performance as if he were a quarterback who choked and got repeatedly sacked at the Super Bowl.

Verrilli did choke a little – literally – at the start of the second day of arguments, coughing and needing to pause to take a drink of water in an effort to clear his throat of something. That problem only lasted briefly, but it proved to be a metaphor to how some saw his entire performance, spurring headlines like: “Obama’s Solicitor General Coughs, Stumbles, Stutters Through ObamaCare Defense.”

Others cut right to the chase, with headlines like the one on Mother Jones’ website: “Donald Verrilli Makes the Worst Supreme Court Argument of All Time.”

The critiques of his performance had the media on high alert once the immigration case came up. When at one point Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor suggested that Verrilli’s argument was “not selling well” with the justices, the press made a little collective gasp. Here we go again, we thought. We were right. The reviews were not good.

Liptak pointed out that in the court of public opinion, the jury was split. Members of the Supreme Court bar defended Verrilli, saying he had a very tough job to do, and he rose to the occasion.

“It always looks bad when the justices aren’t buying what you’re selling,” Ted Olson, veteran Supreme Court advocate and former solicitor general,  told Liptak. “Don had very, very difficult cases. That hand was dealt before he got there.”