SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 30, 2022

Andrus argues that the Texas court “disregard[ed] this Court’s determinations and legal precedents to strain for a result that it prefers,” and in the process violated “vertical stare decisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. That’s all for this week. Until next time, stay safe !

Stare Decisis 103

Stare Decisis Court Felony Statute 103

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 12, 2022

1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the U.S. Goertz , 21-442. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.

Stare Decisis 112

Stare Decisis Court Statute Litigation 112

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 11, 2022

The question is whether the United States is such a successful litigant that the court will grant review even in cases it doesn’t want the court to review. The United States is easily the most successful petitioner before the Supreme Court, winning review in over 70% of the cases in which it files a cert petition. Cochran , 21-1239.

Stare Decisis 84

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Statute Government 84

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 20, 2022

Animal Legal Defense Fund. In 2018, the Animal Legal Defense Fund sought a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction on the ground that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Animal Legal Defense Fund , 21-760. It seems like the odds of a grant are good in one or both cases. Next up is Kelly v.

Statute 106

Statute Stare Decisis Court Manufacturing 106

SCOTUSBlog

JUNE 7, 2022

The FCA gives the government a fair amount of ability to control the litigation. Then the government can intervene if it wishes and take the lead in litigating the case; or it can decline to intervene and let the relator litigate the case.

Government 89

Government Stare Decisis Court Litigation 89

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 27, 2022

Animal Legal Defense Fund , involving the constitutionality of a Kansas statute criminalizing trespass by deception at animal facilities with intent to damage the enterprise. In Monday’s orders , the Supreme Court disposed of three relists.

Statute 87

Statute Stare Decisis Court Drafting 87

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 16, 2024

The stakes in the case are high: The challengers argue that the current deferential standard is unconstitutional, while the Biden administration contends that overturning the existing doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system.” The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the Chevron doctrine.

Stare Decisis 145

Stare Decisis Court Statute Government 145