While many commentators were wondering when the Supreme Court would start issuing opinions, the backlog of argued cases now being substantial, today is their day.

The Supreme Court is back in live session, and so is this blog.

Continue Reading The First Rulings of the New Term – Dismissing Attorney-Client Privilege Case, Denying Equitable Tolling in Veteran’s Benefits Case: SCOTUS Today

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in In re Grand Jury to resolve a circuit split regarding what standard governs the application of the attorney-client privilege to dual-purpose communications, that is communications which contain both legal and non-legal advice. The petition was filed on behalf of an unnamed law firm which asserted the privilege in response to a federal grand jury subpoena.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege for “Dual Purpose” Communications

Coming off the decisions in the landmark Dobbs and Bruen cases, the rest of the term might seem anticlimactic. Nevertheless, as the shelf is being cleared of the remaining cases, there are still rulings of significance to come. As the week opened, one of them—a religious freedom case—likely didn’t surprise anyone who listened to the oral argument or, indeed, who has been paying attention to the conservative Justices having changed the valences in religious liberty cases. The other two cases decided on the opening day of the week were both criminal cases of limited interest, but important nevertheless.

Continue Reading Prayer on the 50-Yard Line Doesn’t Draw a Flag, Plus Two Criminal Cases: SCOTUS Today

Despite a large list of argued cases pending decision, the Court decides just two of them today—neither of them Dobbs.

Continue Reading Court Holds That Judges Can’t Invent Rules Governing Arbitration Waiver and Makes It Harder for Prisoners to Show Ineffective Assistance: SCOTUS Today

The Supreme Court decided two more cases today, one unanimously, the other anything but so.

Yesterday, in United States v. Zubaydah, the Court upheld the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege, rejecting an al Qaeda terrorist leader’s discovery request for information concerning his torture by the CIA. The Court continued its interest in the privilege in today’s unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Alito, in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga.

Continue Reading Court Holds That FISA Doesn’t Trump the State Secrets Privilege and Restores the Capital Murder Conviction of the Boston Marathon Bomber: SCOTUS Today

The Court has decided two important cases today, United States v. Zubaydah, upholding the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege and rejecting the al Qaeda terrorist leader’s discovery request for information concerning his torture by the CIA, and Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., allowing the intervention of the Kentucky attorney general to assume the defense of the state’s abortion law after the official who had been defending the law decided not to seek further review. Both cases are, at root, about significant issues of public interest and policy—the torture of terrorists and restrictive abortion policies—but neither opinion resolves any such question. Indeed, the lessons learned from each of these cases are essentially procedural, and though the outcomes are determined by significant margins, the alliances of Justices on the multiple opinions published are also instructive.

Continue Reading Broad Majority Decisions in Terrorist Torture and Abortion Law Cases Resolve Important State Secrets and Intervention Procedural Issues: SCOTUS Today