Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Fall 2023 arguments

Link here, then click on the chosen case. Login required.

Thank you again for a great round of arguments and a great semester.

Cert grant in mifepristone case

Order list here. Note that the Court granted petitions from the FDA and the drug manufacturers on the issues on which they lost--standing and the challenge to the later changes to mifepristone approval. It denied a cross petition from the plaintiffs on the issues on which they lost--challenge to the original 2000 approval of the drug. This suggests that standing, especially traceability, will be the real focus of the argument.

The Court allotted one hour of argument time for the consolidated arguments. Post-COVID, Court shifted the way it conducts arguments. Each side gets some time (usually 15-20 minutes, probably 30 minutes in this case) for a regular argument. That is followed by a round of serial questioning from each Justice, in order of seniority. And that has no time limit, often it is less about questioning than about the Justices making arguments, and can go on for awhile. So do not be surprised if these arguments surpass three hours.

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

Oral Arguments (Updated and moved to top)

 Reminder that arguments are coming up next Tuesday, December 12. We will begin promptly at 9:30, so you should be there well before then.

Updated Schedule of Arguments and Standing Order on Procedure.

If you have dietary needs and have not notified me, please do so.

Congressional Control papers due at the beginning of arguments. All other graded papers are available for pick-up outside my office.

Acheson decided

SCOTUS on Tuesday decided Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, one of our argument cases. The Court dismissed the case as moot and vacated the lower-court judgment; the opinion is short (3+ pages). Of note are the concurrences--Justice Thomas argues that "testers" lack standing. Justice Jackson questions how routinely (if not automatically) the Court vacates lower-court judgments when cases become moot on appeal; she makes some interesting points about why lower-court decisions should survive even if mootness prohibits appeal.

Monday, November 27, 2023

Congressional Control over SCOTUS

From Prof. Steve Vladeck on Belva Lockwood, the first woman admitted to the SCOTUS Bar. It includes an interesting piece for our purposes: When the Chief Justice refused her admission, Congress enacted a law requiring admission of anyone who meets certain requirements. No one on the Court believed the law problematic--the Chief admitted Lockwood two weeks after Pres. Hayes signed the "Lockwood Bill."

Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Fed Courts Never Rests (Not Even During Thanksgiving)

A district judge abstained under Younger from an action by a member of the North Carolina Supreme Court to stop an investigation by the state Judicial Standards Commission. The court spent some time trying to distinguish the second and third Younger categories; the rest was pretty straightforward.

Monday, November 20, 2023

Abstention II Reax Papers

Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Final Class

Monday audio.

All previous graded papers will be available outside my office this afternoon.

Abstention II papers will be available next week.

Congressional Control papers due when you come for arguments on December 12.

We begin promptly at 9:30 on Tuesday, December 12. Please refer to the schedule and standing order on procedure for details. Lunch will be provided. Please email if you have dietary needs or restrictions.

Have a great holiday and good luck on finals.

Friday, November 17, 2023

New proposal on Cameras

A bill proposed earlier this year. Prep this in conjunction with the bill posted in Additional Materials.

Interesting Standing Puzzle

The UF chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, represented by the ACLU, has sued Gov. DeSantis, State University Chancellor Raymond Rodrigues (the head of all public universities), and the president and trustees of UF and moved for a preliminary injunction. As the complaint allegees, Rodrigues, on DeSantis' command, ordered all state universities to deactivate any recognized SJP chapters (USF and UF have chapters). The complaint does not allege that UF has, at this point, done anything in response to that order.

Assume (as seems likely) any move to deactivate UF SJP would violate the First Amendment. Anyone see a standing problem? Does anyone think the court might recognize and take that seriously? Anyone wanting to analyze can email me and I will post here.


Wednesday, November 15, 2023