A judge who is in a position to throw someone in jail has to be a lawyer, right? Well no, and the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed this anomaly of American justice to persist.
- Controversy Dogs a Late Chief Justice's Monument
- Leaving Big Law, a Holland & Knight Appellate Lawyer Flies Solo
- The Gaps That Led Chief Justice Roberts to Miss a Stock Conflict
- How a Blog Post Led to a Supreme Court Argument
- One of Scalia's Final Law Clerks Looks Back and Ahead
- Opening a Door to Malpractice Suits Against the Veterans Administration
Before former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman rose to argue his 75th case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, it seemed to some that this milestone would be an uphill battle.
When he served as U.S. attorney for South Dakota and chairman of the U.S. Justice Department’s Native American Issues subcommittee, Brendan Johnson learned firsthand the quality of Indian tribal courts. Today, he doesn’t like the picture of tribal justice that a multibillion-dollar corporation is painting for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Private pilots have long posted ads at local airports to find passengers to chip in on costs. When a company called Flytenow moved that process online, the government put a stop to it. A cert petition pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Flytenow v. Federal Aviation Administration argues that grounding the start-up was "dangerously anachronistic" and could stymie the growth of other "sharing economy" services, such as Uber and Airbnb.
During his GOP presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump triggered a debate over birthright citizenship. Now, some of the top high court advocates urge the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on what birthright citizenship means, particularly for persons born in U.S. territories.
The Federal Trade Commission has finally prevailed in a long-running dispute with POM Wonderful over allegedly misleading claims about the health benefits of the company’s pomegranate products.
Prosecutors are barred from freezing criminal defendants’ assets unconnected to their alleged crimes and needed to hire defense counsel of choice, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a decision that crossed its liberal-conservative divide.
Writing about the U.S. Supreme Court—both fiction and nonfiction—is a growing genre, but it has its pitfalls and challenges. Five authors gathered recently to discuss their work and experiences. Georgetown's Supreme Court Institute hosted the event, and C-SPAN's Book TV aired the panel discussion on April 23.
It was a David versus Goliath battle on the field of copyright law. David emerged victorious with a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. Now David wants more than $2 million in attorney fees. The biblical analogy came from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during Monday's high court arguments in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons. And just like three years ago, the justices did not seem satisfied with either argument.