Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "More About Adam Liptak"


25 mentions found


The case on time limits, Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008, arose from a challenge to a 2011 regulation of debit-card swipe fees brought by two trade associations in 2021. The amended suit said Corner Post could not have sued within the six-year period after the issuance of the regulation because it did not yet exist. “Has the Justice Department and the agencies considered whether there is any interaction between these two challenges?” Justice Kagan asked. The lawyer, Benjamin W. Snyder, responded, “I want to be careful here.”Then he added that the consequences could be enormous.
Persons: Elena Kagan, , ” Justice Kagan, Benjamin W, Snyder, Organizations: Governors, Federal Reserve, N.D, Chevron, Natural Resources Defense Council, Justice Department Locations: Watford City, Chevron
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the case, siding with a member of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality. Virginia Thomas, known as Ginny, helped shape the effort to overturn the 2020 election. But he recused himself in October from a case concerning John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who had advised Mr. Trump. Justice Thomas, for whom Mr. Eastman had served as a law clerk, gave no reasons for his decision to disqualify himself from that case.
Persons: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A, Alito Jr, Virginia Thomas, Ginny, “ Biden, Ms, Thomas, Mark Meadows, Donald J, Trump’s, John Eastman, Trump, Justice Thomas, Eastman Organizations: Capitol
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected one of the primary ways the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces laws against securities fraud. The S.E.C.’s practice, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a six-justice majority in a decision divided along ideological lines, violated the right to a jury trial. “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” the chief justice wrote. The case is one of several challenges this term to the power of administrative agencies, long a target of the conservative legal movement. The court last month rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded.
Persons: John G, Roberts, , , Chevron Organizations: Securities and Exchange, Consumer Financial
“I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito wrote. “My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly,” the justice wrote. “She therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly." Justice Alito added that the “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey beach house did not convey the meaning critics ascribed to it. “I was not aware of any connection between that historic flag and the ‘Stop the Steal Movement,’ and neither was my wife,” he wrote.
Persons: , Alito, Organizations: , Locations: Virginia, New Jersey
Indeed, the decision will almost certainly apply to any other state where Mr. Trump’s eligibility to run has been challenged. Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in a presidential contest. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Mr. Trump is ineligible to seek or hold office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War and prohibits people who swore to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office. After Mr. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 3 to hear his appeal, the justices have moved with considerable speed to resolve the issue. Based on questioning at the oral argument, Mr. Trump is likely to prevail.
Persons: Trump, Bush, Gore, George W Organizations: Colorado Supreme, Mr, U.S, Supreme Locations: Colorado
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump, a week to respond to Mr. Trump’s emergency application asking the justices to halt an appeals court’s ruling that rejected his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges. In asking Mr. Smith to respond by Feb. 20 at 4 p.m., the justices did not set a particularly speedy schedule. But nothing prevents Mr. Smith from filing sooner, and he probably will. The proceedings against Mr. Trump in the trial court will remain frozen in the meantime. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene on Monday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers urged the justices to move at a deliberate pace.
Persons: Jack Smith, Donald J, Trump, Mr, Smith Organizations: Mr
It usually takes the Supreme Court about three months after an argument to issue a decision. The biggest rulings tend not to arrive until late June, no matter how early in the term the cases were argued. But the case argued Thursday is different, and the nation can expect a prompt ruling. The question, Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the justices, “urgently require this court’s prompt resolution.”Lawyers for the six Colorado voters who challenged Mr. Trump’s eligibility asked the court to rule by Sunday, the day before the state mails primary ballots. But the court may well act before the Super Tuesday on March 5, when Colorado and 14 other state hold their presidential primaries.
Persons: Donald J, Trump, Organizations: Colorado, Sunday Locations: Colorado
On a blustery fall morning in southern New Jersey, the weather was too rough for the fishing boats at the center of a momentous Supreme Court case to set out to sea. A herring fisherman named Bill Bright talked about the case, which will be argued on Wednesday and could both lift what he said was an onerous fishing regulation and wipe out the most important precedent on the power of executive agencies, a long-sought goal of the conservative legal movement. As workers cleaned squid and the salt air whipped over the docks, Mr. Bright, who has been fishing for 40 years and whose family-owned company is one of the plaintiffs, said he recognized the impact the case could have. “I can see why this case is such a political thing,” he said.
Persons: Bill Bright, Bright, , it’s Locations: New Jersey
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday over which drug offenses trigger mandatory 15-year sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which is a kind of federal three-strikes law. By the end of the arguments, most of them seemed to have settled on a middle ground. The law imposes the mandatory sentences on people convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms if they had already committed three violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The question for the justices was how to determine which drug offenses count under the law, which refers to a schedule of controlled substances overseen by the attorney general. Depending on which version of the schedule applies, a state drug conviction may or may not count as a strike under the federal gun law.
Lawmakers are ordinarily shielded by a legislative privilege from inquiries into their motives for sponsoring or voting for legislation. In September, Judge Susan R. Bolton, of the Federal District Court in Arizona, ruled that a different analysis applied when lawmakers voluntarily injected themselves into a litigation. “The speaker and president each waived their privilege by intervening to ‘fully defend’ the voting laws and putting their motives at issue,” Judge Bolton wrote, adding that the two legislators could be compelled to testify about their activities. At first, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked Judge Bolton’s ruling but later lifted its stay, allowing depositions of the men to proceed. The lawmakers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
Persons: Susan R, ” Judge Bolton, Bolton’s, Organizations: Bolton, Federal, Court, U.S ., Appeals, Circuit Locations: Arizona
When the Supreme Court heard arguments this month on whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm domestic abusers, Justice Amy Coney Barrett made a cryptic reference that puzzled many in the courtroom. She asked, according to the court’s official transcript, about “the range issue.”Sentencing range? She was, it turned out, referring to a person, Bryan Range, who has challenged a federal law prohibiting people who have been convicted of felonies from owning guns. Range is a far more sympathetic figure than the defendant in the domestic violence case, Zackey Rahimi. According to court records, Mr. Rahimi threatened women with firearms and was involved in five shootings in a two-month stretch.
Persons: Amy Coney Barrett, Bryan Range, Rahimi, Justice Barrett
The Supreme Court refused on Thursday to revive a Florida law that banned children from “adult live performances” such as drag shows. The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications, and a First Amendment challenge to the law will continue in the lower courts. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, issued a statement stressing that the court’s order was addressed to an issue unrelated to the constitutionality of the law. The order, he wrote, “indicates nothing about our view on whether Florida’s new law violates the First Amendment.”
Persons: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A, Alito Jr, Neil M, Gorsuch, Brett M, Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Organizations: Justice Locations: Florida
At the heart of much of the debate over the new ethics code is which conflicts require recusal and whether justices should decide those questions for themselves. Justice Thomas, for instance, took part in cases on the 2020 election and its aftermath, even though Virginia Thomas, his wife, had participated in efforts to overturn the results. The new code does not say what can be done to address situations like that, said Renee Knake Jefferson, a law professor at the University of Houston. It does not apply to Supreme Court justices. There was a grudging quality to an introductory statement that preceded the new code, one that all but conceded that it was for show.
Persons: Justice Thomas, Virginia Thomas, Renee Knake Jefferson, Organizations: University of Houston, Judicial
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it had issued an ethics code for the justices after a series of revelations about undisclosed property deals and gifts intensified pressure on the court to adopt one. In a statement by the court, the justices said they had adopted the code of conduct “to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the members of the court.”“For the most part these rules and principles are not new,” the court said, adding that “the absence of a code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”Left unclear was how the code will be enforced. Although lower federal judges are bound by an ethics code that governs their conduct, the Supreme Court justices have never been required to abide by those same rules because of its special constitutional status. In a letter to lawmakers this spring, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the court “takes guidance” from the ethics code for other federal judges.
Persons: , John G, Roberts Jr Organizations: Supreme
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday on whether the government may disarm people subject to domestic violence orders. The question is important, of course, as studies have demonstrated that the combination of domestic strife and firearms can be lethal. The Supreme Court itself recognized this in a 2014 majority opinion. “All too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, quoting a lawmaker. But the potential sweep of the decision in the new case extends far beyond domestic abuse.
Persons: Sonia Sotomayor Locations: Maine
The Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to rule that the government may disarm people under domestic violence orders, limiting the sweep of last year’s blockbuster gun rights decision. Several conservative justices, during a lively if largely one-sided argument, seemed to be searching for a narrow rationale that would not require them to retreat substantially from a new Second Amendment test the court announced last year in vastly expanding people’s right to arm themselves in public. Under the new standard, the justices said lower courts must look to history to assess the constitutionality of gun control measures. But conservative justices seemed prepared on Tuesday to accept that a judicial finding of dangerousness in the context of domestic violence proceedings was sufficient to support a federal law making it a crime for people subject to such orders to possess guns — even if there was no measure from the founding era precisely like the one at issue in the case. “Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, adding that other limits on gun rights posed harder questions.
Persons: Amy Coney Barrett
In her memoir, Justice Sonia Sotomayor confessed that she does not always observe the letter of the law. “I’m a New Yorker,” she wrote, “and I jaywalk with the best of them.”Almost no one is arrested for jaywalking, of course. But, as Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in a 2018 argument, it is the sort of crime that a police officer could use as a pretext for retaliation. “The person jaywalked,” she said. But what should judges do when a police officer, who would ordinarily look the other way, does not?
Persons: Sonia Sotomayor, , , Elena Kagan Organizations: New Yorker Locations: New
The big gun rights case the Supreme Court is set to hear on Tuesday presents the justices with a tricky problem. They must start to clear up the confusion they created last year in a landmark decision that revolutionized Second Amendment law by saying that long-ago historical practices are all that matter in assessing challenges to gun laws. That standard has left lower courts in turmoil as they struggle to hunt down references to obscure or since-forgotten regulations. Judging the constitutionality of gun laws has turned into a “game of historical ‘Where’s Waldo?’” Judge Holly A. Brady of the Federal District Court in Fort Wayne, Ind., wrote in December. But this week’s case is an imperfect vehicle for achieving greater clarity about the reach of the Second Amendment.
Persons: Where’s Waldo, , Holly A . Brady Organizations: Federal, Court Locations: Fort Wayne, Ind
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration had acted lawfully in banning bump stocks, the attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire in sustained, rapid bursts. In Supreme Court briefs, the Biden administration urged the justices to uphold the ban, endorsing a rare move by the Trump administration to curtail gun violence after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. That October, a gunman armed with such a device opened fire at a music festival, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds of others. After the shootings, Justice Department officials initially said that the executive branch did not have the authority to ban bump stocks without congressional action. The department later changed course, determining it could ban the devices on its own.
Persons: Trump, Biden Organizations: Justice Department Locations: Las Vegas
The Supreme Court worked hard in a pair of arguments on Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials’ purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test. The question in the two cases was when the Constitution limits officials’ ability to block users from their accounts. Had the account been private, the court said, Mr. Trump could have blocked whomever he wanted. But since he used the account as a government official, he was subject to the First Amendment.
Persons: Donald J, Trump Organizations: Twitter Locations: New York
NBC argued that relaying a video feed from the courtroom to its studios, say, and then broadcasting it to the public, perhaps after a brief delay, would not run afoul of the rule. That argument might strike some as too clever. That would not seem to be broadcasting from the courtroom. Rebecca Blumenstein, the president of editorial for NBC News and a former deputy managing editor of The New York Times, asked Judge Chutkan to do at least that much. “At minimum, I urge this court to allow the video recording of proceedings for historical posterity,” Ms. Blumenstein said in a sworn statement submitted with NBC’s application.
Persons: Tanya S, Rebecca Blumenstein, Judge Chutkan, ” Ms, Blumenstein, Organizations: NBC, NBC News, The New York Times
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Biden administration officials to continue to contact social media platforms to combat what the officials say is misinformation, pausing a sweeping ruling from a federal appeals court that had severely limited such interactions. The justices also agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in the case, setting the stage for a major test of the role of the First Amendment in the internet era — one that will require the court to consider when government efforts to limit the spread of misinformation amount to censorship of constitutionally protected speech. Three justices dissented from the court’s decision to lift the restrictions on administration officials while the case moves forward. “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. Justice Alito criticized the majority for acting “without undertaking a full review of the record and without any explanation” and allowing the administration to continue its interactions until the court finally rules, “an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year.”
Persons: Biden, Samuel A, Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, Neil M, Gorsuch, Alito,
The Supreme Court refused on Friday to reinstate an expansive Missouri law that restricted state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws and allowed private lawsuits against law enforcement agencies that violated the state’s understanding of the Second Amendment. The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications asking them to intervene in an early stage of litigation. An appeal of a judge’s ruling striking down the law will proceed, and the case could again reach the Supreme Court after that appeal is decided. The Missouri law, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, was enacted in 2021 and had several unusual provisions. One declared various kinds of federal laws — including ones requiring the registration of weapons and making gun dealers keep records — to be “infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”A second provision prohibited the state from hiring former federal employees who had enforced such laws or given “material aid and support” to efforts to enforce them.
Persons: Clarence Thomas, Locations: Missouri
Justice Elena Kagan said on Friday that the Supreme Court should adopt a code of ethics, saying that “it would be a good thing for the court to do that.”Her comment, part of a wide-ranging live-streamed public interview at Notre Dame Law School, came on the day ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas had twice attended an annual event for donors organized by the conservative political network established by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. Justice Kagan did not discuss the report, but she said that an ethics code “would, I think, go far in persuading other people that we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct.” She added that “I hope we can make progress.”G. Marcus Cole, the law school’s dean, asked her to identify the holdout among the justices. She refused, saying the justices’ deliberations are private. “What goes on in the conference room stays in the conference room,” she said. She added that she did not want to suggest that there was a single holdout.
Persons: Elena Kagan, , Clarence Thomas, Charles, David Koch, Justice Kagan, G, Marcus Cole Organizations: Notre Dame Law School
A little more than a month ago, a law professor who helped found the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, enthusiastically endorsed a new law review article arguing that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to be president. The article was “a tour de force,” the professor, Steven G. Calabresi, told me. It demonstrated, he said, that Mr. Trump was subject to a provision of the Constitution that bars some officials who have engaged in insurrection from holding government office. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” said Professor Calabresi, who teaches at Northwestern University. He appeared to be offering considered views, and he elaborated on them in a blog post titled “Trump Is Disqualified From Being on Any Election Ballots.”
Persons: Donald J, Trump, Steven G, Calabresi, “ Trump, Organizations: Federalist Society, Northwestern University
Total: 25