On May 9, 2024, Wiggin and Dana’s Supreme Court Update Authors Tadhg Dooley and David Roth, and Quinnipiac University Law School Professor of Law and SCOTUS blog contributor Stephen G. Gilles discussed the Supreme Court October term cases and
Supreme Court Update
And Other Appellate Musings
The Supreme Court Update blog, published by Wiggin and Dana LLP, focuses on recent and significant developments in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. It covers a range of constitutional law issues including voting rights, criminal procedure, confrontation clause rights, and procedural aspects of federal and state court cases. The blog also previews upcoming Supreme Court arguments and analyzes the Court's docket trends, highlighting cases involving federal authority, civil rights, and high-profile cultural and legal disputes. It provides summaries and critical insights into decisions affecting election law, criminal justice, and constitutional protections.
Latest from Supreme Court Update - Page 5
Rudisill v. McDonough (No. 22-888), Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (No. 22-193), McIntosh v. United States (No. 22-7386)
In a week that saw some of the most significant arguments of the term (including Trump v. United States, on the former president’s potential immunity from criminal prosecution), we’re back to summarize three outstanding decisions from last week:
…
DeVillier v. Texas (No. 22-913), Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (No. 22-1074), Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. (No. 23-51), Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners (No. 22-1165)
The Court’s been fairly busy over the last week-plus, issuing seven opinions and a number of notable orders. Unfortunately, we’ve also been fairly busy, and now must dig out of a seven-opinion hole. We’ll do that in two parts, making…
Lindke v. Freed (No. 22-611) and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (No. 22-324), Wilkinson v. Garland (No. 22-666), FBI v. Firke (No. 22-1178)
We’re back to round up last week’s decisions.
- Lindke v. Freed (No. 22-611) and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (No. 22-324), in which the Court (kind of) addressed when a public official’s blocking of a member of the public from the
…
Pulsifer v. United States (No. 22-340)
The Nine returned to action late last week, issuing decisions in three (well, really just two) closely watched cases:
- In Lindke v. Freed (No. 22-611) and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (No. 22-324), a unanimous Court clarified when a public official’s
…
Trump v. Anderson (No. 23-719)
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its first major decision of the term in Trump v. Anderson (No. 23-719). To the surprise of almost no one, the Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s removal of candidate Trump from the…
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (No. 22-500) and McElrath v. Georgia (No. 22-721)
The Nine issued another pair of unanimous decisions this week addressing questions other than whether Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath as an “officer of the United States.”
…
Murray v. UBS Securities, Inc. (No. 22-660), Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (No. 22-846)
Most Court-watchers’ attention last Thursday was devoted to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson (No. 23-719), where candidate Trump seeks to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision barring him from that state’s primary ballot on the ground…
Partner Tadhg Dooley Quoted in the Media on Correctional Reform
By Tadhg Dooley
On January 12-13, 2024, Partner Tadhg Dooley was quoted in several articles describing the Connecticut Correction Advisory Committee’s selection of finalists to be appointed by Governor Lamont as the state’s first Correction Ombuds.
Both the Correction Advisory Committee and the…
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (No. 22-429)
On Tuesday, the Court issued its first decision of the term: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (No. 22-429). This was set to be a significant decision on the standing of so-called “testers”—individuals who file lawsuits against businesses whose websites…