Despite a large list of argued cases pending decision, the Court decides just two of them today—neither of them Dobbs.
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.
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.
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “Two ‘GVRs’ Show Continued Restraint by the Justices.”
The following is an excerpt:
The Court issued two per curiam opinions today, both of them granting cert., vacating the judgments below
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “Three More Cases Demonstrating Jurisprudential Reason, Not Politics.”
The following is an excerpt:
Another busy day for the Court, which is no surprise given the short time remaining in the
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “A Placid Beginning to the Last Month of the Term.”
The following is an excerpt:
This morning begins what many are anticipating to be an exciting last month of the
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “A Unanimous Court Applies Unambiguous Statutory Requirements in Two New Decisions“.
The following is an excerpt:
The Court is in full-majority mode today, again focusing on text rather than more
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “The Court at Peace“.
The following is an excerpt:
Given that there was a good deal of media interest in Justice Sotomayor’s somewhat vituperative dissenting criticism of Justice Kavanaugh in
Our colleagues Stuart Gerson and Daniel Fundakowski of Epstein Becker Green have a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: “Court Declines Resolving Circuit Split on What Constitutes a ‘False’ Claim, but Will Consider Legality of Trump Abortion Gag Rule.”
The following is an excerpt:
While this
In July, we reported (here) on a Third Circuit decision that held an out-of-network provider’s direct claims against an insurer for breach of contract and promissory estoppel were not pre-empted by ERISA. That opinion was a significant win for healthcare providers. Recently, there has been another important win for out-of-network providers—this time from