article thumbnail

US Supreme Court rules against Puerto Rico journalists seeking documents from financial oversight board

JURIST

The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a group of Puerto Rico journalists who were seeking documents from the island’s financial oversight board, saying that the board is protected from such information requests by sovereign immunity. The case, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v.

article thumbnail

The morning read for Friday, April 22

SCOTUSBlog

Here’s the Friday morning read: Supreme Court Rules on Stolen Art, Signs and Puerto Rico’s Status (Adam Liptak, The New York Times). Supreme Court considers whether high school football coach has right to pray on the field (Mark Walsh, ABA Journal).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Greater than Holmes? The life and legacy of John Marshall Harlan

SCOTUSBlog

Having lived through Dred Scott , he was deeply conscious of how mistakes by the court could lead to terrible outcomes. Comparing court decisions with which he disagreed to Dred Scott was almost a reflexive tactic of his. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.

Court 122
article thumbnail

In equal-protection challenge, court will review Puerto Rico’s exclusion from federal safety-net program

SCOTUSBlog

Share Jose Luis Vaello-Madero is an American citizen who was born in Puerto Rico. But when he moved back to Puerto Rico to be closer to his family, Vaello-Madero lost his SSI benefits because, by law, Puerto Rico residents are excluded from the program. Two lower courts ruled in favor of Vaello-Madero.

Court 115
article thumbnail

Blockbuster Watch

SCOTUSBlog

They argue that the court nonetheless should grant review in order to clarify the law for future elections. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, has already opined that “ there is a strong likelihood that the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Court 88