Share Today is the last day of argument for the 2023-24 term, and – as everyone in the courtroom knows – we are here to see what is probably the biggest case of the term: Trump v. United States. Yesterday, after an intense argument over abortion and emergency care in Moyle v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts popped over to Georgetown University Law Center’s annual end-of-arguments reception, which revolves around the law school’s Supreme Court Institute and all those who participate in its moot courts preparing advocates who will argue their cases before the justices. Roberts gave a ..read more

Share Today is the last day of scheduled oral arguments for the 2023-24 term. At 10 a.m. EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Trump v. United States. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read: Supreme Court tackles Trump’s broad claim of presidential immunity in election interference case (Lawrence Hurley & Ryan J. Reilly, NBC News) What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity (Eric Tucker, The Associated Press) In Immun ..read more

Share The oral argument Tuesday in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney was surprisingly one-sided, as the justices seem to have come to the bench settled on the view that the lower court’s ruling could not stand. The basic issue in the case is what the National Labor Relations Board has to prove to get a preliminary injunction against an employer (in this case, Starbucks) while it conducts administrative proceedings to determine if the employer committed an unfair labor practice. It became pretty clear early in the argument that the justices were not satisfied with the NLRB-preferred standard, applie ..read more

Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over whether a federal law requiring hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” in an emergency overrides an Idaho law that bars most abortions. The court’s ruling could affect health care in emergency rooms in the 22 states that have imposed restrictions on abortions, particularly in the six states that – like Idaho – lack exemptions to the general ban to protect the health of the mother. The federal law at the center of the case is known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Passed in 1986 ..read more

Share Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri was this month’s case under the Federal Arbitration Act. This one explores what a trial court can do when it refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the FAA says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely. The argument included a fair amount of questioning about the text. For example, early in Daniel Geyser’s ar ..read more

Share Less than a month after the justices heard oral arguments in a case seeking to roll back access to one of the drugs used in medication abortions, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in another case involving abortion. At issue in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States is whether emergency rooms in Idaho can provide abortions to pregnant women in an emergency. The Biden administration contends that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act can in some narrow circumstances trump a state law that criminalizes most abortions in the s ..read more

Share Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating so-called “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that virtually anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was one of two cases granted on Monday on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The dispute over the “ghost guns” ru ..read more

Share Union organizing efforts at Starbucks probably are the most protracted labor dispute of the decade, and on Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear argument in a closely watched case arising from the company’s firing of seven employees at a Memphis branch. The workers, known as the Memphis 7, said they were fired in retaliation for trying to unionize. The union, Starbucks Workers United, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which went to federal court and won a preliminary injunction. Now, to be clear, the legal issue in this case has little to do with the propriety of ..read more

Share The justices will hear oral argument in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson and Smith v. Spizzirri this morning. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read: Supreme Court weighs Oregon city’s power to punish the homeless (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News) The miscarriage was inevitable. Could she have had an ER abortion? Supreme Court to decide (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) Homelessness case before US supreme court could have far-reaching effects (Diana Ramirez-Simon ..read more

Share It seems like the justices can’t have a monthly argument session without at least one case under the Federal Arbitration Act. Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri asks what the options are for a trial judge who refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely. Wendy Smith is one of ..read more