JUSTICES WARY OF COLORADO LAW | It’s Now Harder to Sue the Boys in Blue
January 10, 2017
PAY UP BUTTERCUP
|Yesterday, the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the Colorado law that makes it difficult for criminal defendants to get refunded for fines and restitution, even after having their convictions overturned. David Savage with the Los Angeles Times reports UCLA law professor STUART BANNER argued before the court that people who are freed are “entitled to get their money back” — a proposition he thinks is “almost too obvious to need stating.”
SWIPE OR INSERT YOUR CARD NOW
|“The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled over how to decide a challenge to a New York state law barring retailers from imposing surcharges on customers who make purchases with a credit card instead of cash.” That’s Lawrence Hurley with Reuters reporting on the goings-on at SCOTUS today.
HARDER TO SUE THE BOYS IN BLUE
|The Supreme Court yesterday made it more difficult for police officers to be sued in the lower courts. The justices ruled that an officer who killed a suspect without other officers issuing a warning is protected from lawsuit because there was no case on the books finding an officer liable under the exact same circumstances. Noah Feldman for Bloomberg writes, “Courts’ limitations are real, as is shown by controversial outcomes in a growing number of use-of-force cases. But the question remains: If courts won’t rein in police, who will? The Supreme Court picked the wrong time to express annoyance with such cases. A few more lawsuits is a price we should be willing to pay to help protect suspects from unnecessary deadly force.”
CAN I GET AN ENCORE, DO YOU WANT MORE
|Our friend Chris Geidner with Buzzfeed reports the Supreme Court is ready for its holding pattern to finally draw to a close with DONALD TRUMP naming his nominee for the long-standing the vacancy at our nation’s highest court. Geidner notes that we should expect more of what we’re used to: a conservative court defining and directing jurisprudence in America.
HOW CAN SOMETHING THAT FEELS SO WRONG
|Be so right? The current inner monologue of Democrats around SCOTUS seems to be pulling them towards making the wrong decision. Or so says BERNIE SANDERS. Speaking at a CNN town hall, Sanders suggested that Dems might not “do the right thing” with a Supreme Court nominee, and potentially take a page out of the GOP playbook to stall a confirmation until the end of time.
SHE FILLS GAPS, I GUESS
|Tony Mauro with The National Law Journal describes the gaps that led CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS to miss his own stock conflict in the case of Life Technologies v. Promega. Mauro writes, “Here’s why conflict checks at the nation’s highest court are an imperfect process.”
PODCAST DU JOUR – FIRST MONDAYS
|In the latest episode of First Mondays, Executive Director of Fix the Court, GABE ROTH, talks stock holdings and judicial integrity at the high court. SCOTUSDaily also got a nice little shoutout when the First-y dudes noted that if you’re following the Supreme Court and NOT reading SCOTUSDaily, “I don’t know what you’re doing with your life.”
OTHER NEWS
Trump SCOTUS Short-Lister Gorsuch: Five Things to Know
Bloomberg“Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch could replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, and fill his shoes as the most colorful writer on the court.”
Asian-American Group The Slants Head to Supreme Court Over Band Name
Rolling Stone“The Slants, an Asian-American rock band out of Portland, will have a hearing in front of the Supreme Court on January 18th in an effort to gain the trademark over their band name, bringing a seven-year Freedom of Speech battle closer to conclusion.”