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.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- “They Said What?! I’ll Sue!” – Litigating Defamatory Claims – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- Two Plaintiffs Win Border Battles as Court Emphasizes When It Has Jurisdiction in Cases with Substantial Factual Issues - SCOTUS Today
- Public Officials Subject to Suits for Blocking Social Media Critics, “Safety Valve” Relief from Mandatory Minimums Is Limited - SCOTUS Today
- Main Justice Launches a 90-Day “Policy Sprint” to Launch a Whistleblower Rewards Program
- What to Do When Your Case Gets Referred to Mediation