SCOTUS DIVIDED YESTERDAY | Arkansas Pulls Off a Twofer | SCOTUS Wasn’t Invited To Dinner
April 25, 2017
MENTAL HEALTH DAY AT SCOTUS
|The Supreme Court justices yesterday seemed split on whether an Alabama inmate was entitled to a mental-health expert to help defend him, or whether it is sufficient to have court-appointed experts report to both the prosecution and defense. This case comes amidst a flurry of headlines out of Arkansas where the state is doing its best to carry out a rushed timeline of executions before its lethal injection drugs expire at the end of the month. The Arkansas Supreme Court pressed pause on two of the state’s executions last week to await guidance from SCOTUS in Monday’s case, McWilliams v. Dunn.
ARKANSAS KILLS TWO IN ONE NIGHT
|“For the first time since 2000, a state executed two people in one day on Monday.” Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner reports on last night’s double execution and the legal wrangling that took place in the hours before.
ICYMI
|The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review a lower-court ruling that said General Motors was liable for claims or injuries arising before it filed for bankruptcy in 2009.
NEW BLOOD
|A new justice means a new team of judicial clerks. Meet the four men and women who are currently clerking for JUSTICE GORSUCH, brought to you by Tony Mauro with The National Law Journal.
RIGHT NOW NOW NOW
|Last month, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation that would bring greater transparency to our courts, calling for video recordings of all federal appeals court hearings and Supreme Court arguments. However, Executive Director of Fix the Court, GABE ROTH, is scratching his head and wondering why the new “Cameras in the Courtroom Act” wasn’t preceded by a “Live Audio in the Courtroom Act.” Roth opines in his latest piece that although cameras in the courtroom would be great, livestreaming audio would be better. He writes, “How many of you watched the JUSTICE GORSUCH confirmation hearings last month? Like actually ‘watched’ them? I’m guessing very few. To the extent that you paid attention, chances are you turned on the TV or went to C-SPAN.org and listened as you went about your day. Your eyes were not fixed to your screens as the senators and the nominee parried. That’s not a bad thing; that’s how work works nowadays.”
MAIS NON, MON AMI
|Jess Bravin with The Wall Street Journal reports that JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO “put the kibosh” on the idea of cameras in the courtroom this week, saying video coverage of SCOTUS “would change the nature of the argument.”
LOOK WHO'S COMING TO DINNER
|Remember that dinner PRESIDENT TRUMP said he was having with Supreme Court justices? The one that was announced as part of the president’s schedule and then was suddenly postponed? Turns out, no one ever invited the justices in the first place. Cristian Farias with The Huffington Post reports that the Supreme Court did not receive a formal invitation for dinner with the president, explaining why the event suddenly fell off the calendar.
OTHER NEWS
The Supreme Court's Double Standard for Qualified Immunity Cases
The Washington Post“Until today, I thought that the court had acknowledged and defended this double standard for qualified immunity cases, on the ground that it was really important to protect officers from lawsuits. But perhaps I misunderstood.”
Supreme Court Asked to Umpire 'Who's on First' Dispute
The National Law Journal“First the copyright infringement case over use of Abbott and Costello’s ‘Who’s on First’ routine in a Broadway play was dismissed by a New York federal judge. Then it rounded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but was tagged out again. Now, in its third at bat, lawyers representing the heirs of vaudeville comedy duo Bud Abbott and Lou Costello are swinging for review at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case?
Reason“Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public? An important case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for possible review may provide definitive legal answers.”