03 Thursday Mar 2016
Posted in Appellate Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Plain English and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Plain English/Language Made Simple, SCOTUSblog
http://www.scotusblog.com/category/plain-english/
This is our archive of posts in Plain English. You may also be interested in these resources:
Supreme Court Procedure
Glossary of Legal Terms
Biographies of the Justices
14 Thursday Jan 2016
Posted in Appellate Law, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on So What’s Going To Happen to Puerto Rico?
|
Argument Analysis: Puerto Rico — Special No More?, by Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS Blog
|
17 Sunday Aug 2014
Posted in Appellate Law
≈ Comments Off on What It Means When Court Opinion’s Author Is “Per Curiam.”
Scholarship Highlight: The Supreme Court’s Misuse Of Per Curiam Opinions, by Ira Robbins, SCOTUSblog
“Per Curiam” is a Latin phrase that means “by the court.” It is sometimes used to distinguish an opinion written by the entire court rather than one of the judges.
When I worked for a Justice at the Oklahoma Supreme Court, I saw only one “per curiam” opinion handed down by the Court. Courts don’t decide appeals overnight. It usually takes a year or two before the Court renders an appeal. In this one unique situation, a case had languished for an inordinately long time. I will never know why the judge to whom the appeal had been assigned never got around to it.
To resolve the situation, the Chief Justice re-assigned the case to another judge, who made this particular appeal a priority. As quickly as possible, he wrote a draft opinion circulated to the rest of the court for consideration. When the opinion was adopted and handed down by the Court, the author written on the opinion itself said “per curiam.” The judge who actually wrote the opinion did not want to be unfairly criticized for the delay.
“Per curiam” can be used for other reasons. This post by Ira Robbins at SCOTUS Blog elaborates on the history, use, and misuse of this legal term of art. -CCE
22 Tuesday Apr 2014
Posted in Appellate Law, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Opinion on Affirmative Action.
Tags
Affirmative Action, Higher Education, Michigan, Michigan Constitution, Minorities, Public Universities, SCOTUS Blog, U.S. Supreme Court
Evening Round-Up: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, by Kali Borkoski, SCOTUSblog
I have not yet read the entire opinion, as well as all of the separate opinions. This post provides links to many others that have already analyzed this decision and who wrote what. -CCE
This morning, a divided Court upheld an amendment to the Michigan constitution that prohibits the use of affirmative action by public universities in admissions. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion that was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion, concurring in the judgment only, that was joined by Justice Thomas, while Justice Breyer filed his own opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion (joined by Justice Ginsburg) and summarized her dissent from the bench. . . .
23 Saturday Nov 2013
Posted in Appellate Law, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Why Cases Before the Supreme Court Settle.
Tags
Bloomberg Law, Legal Precedent, Oral Argument, SCOTUS Blog, Stephen Wermiel, United States Supreme Court
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Why cases settle, by Stephen Wermiel, SCOTUS Blog
If you want an unusual measure of the power of the Supreme Court, consider why parties to a case sometimes (although rarely) settle their dispute after the Justices have agreed to hear the appeal and as oral argument approaches.
In some cases, the answer may simply be fear of losing, but it can also be much more profound: not only the fear of losing, but also a concern that in the process the loss may establish a legal precedent for the nation that one side of the case considers harmful.
You must be logged in to post a comment.