Scribble

Editor's Note :

Scribble

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

Live blog of confirmation hearing | September 27, 2018

Live blog of confirmation hearing | September 27, 2018

We live-blogged as the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

We live-blogged as the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

3rd & 7 37yd

Good morning, and welcome to our live blog.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:47:58 PM
In just about ten minutes, the fifth day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing will be gaveled into session. We will hear testimony from Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the judge of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:49:18 PM
This session of the hearing, unlike the previous four days, is taking place in a relatively small hearing room with extremely limited press coverage, at Ford's request.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:50:17 PM
Ford will go first and Kavanaugh will be next; they won't be in the room at the same time, again at Ford's request.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:50:53 PM
In an unusual move, the Republican members of the committee have chosen to have their questioning conducted by Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor from Arizona. The Democratic members will be questioning the witnesses themselves.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:51:52 PM
Is a committee vote still scheduled for tomorrow?

by David 9/27/2018 1:53:05 PM
Each senator will have five minutes for questioning (which they can cede to colleagues or staff members, including Rachel Mitchell), and the Republicans and Democrats will alternate.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:53:22 PM
Here's the basic outline for the day as I understand it.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 1:54:40 PM
Grassley and Feinstein will give opening statements, for which there will be no time limitation.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 1:54:55 PM
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will be sworn in and give an opening statement (no time limit).

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 1:55:15 PM
The committee vote is still scheduled for 9:30 tomorrow. But one thing about that is that Chairman Grassley has indicated that there are certain things he must do under committee rules, include give three days notice for a vote.

by Mark Walsh 9/27/2018 1:55:26 PM
Each senator will have five minutes for questioning. Senators can defer their time to another committee member or staff person. Senators will alternate questioning by party.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 1:56:22 PM
Then this will repeat for Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 1:56:38 PM
Am I the only one here for the orders list?

by Lawyer 9/27/2018 1:58:34 PM
The senators are taking their seats now.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 1:59:57 PM
What a crazy day. Good morning

by John the Lawyer 9/27/2018 2:01:09 PM
Chairman Grassley just came in and is sitting down.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:01:58 PM
When will the list of denials appear?

by Soulard David 9/27/2018 2:02:42 PM
How many senators in total? How long do we expect this to take?

by KPOM 9/27/2018 2:03:02 PM
This hearing is in the Judiciary Committee's regular hearing room, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The first part was in the large general hearing room in the more modern Hart Senate Office Building. That room is more or less a TV studio. Dr. Ford apparently did not want to testify in that imposing room.

by Mark Walsh 9/27/2018 2:03:55 PM
Dr. Ford is at the table now.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:04:24 PM
She is accompanied by her lawyers, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:05:13 PM
Grassley is bringing the hearing to order.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:05:34 PM
He is thanking the witnesses for testifying.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:05:53 PM
Both have been through a terrible couple of weeks. They and their families have received vile threats.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:06:24 PM
Wants to apologize for the way they have been treated, wants hearing to be safe and dignified and civil.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:06:52 PM
Explains how hearing has come about. Nominated on July 9. Kavanaugh has served on DC Circuit for 12 years.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:07:30 PM
Kavanaugh has undergone six full background investigations. Nowhere in these six FBI reports was there a whiff of any issue, any issue at all, related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:08:13 PM
Ford first raised allegations nearly 2 months ago in a secret letter. Letter was secret from July 30 until September. Ranking Member Feinstein took no action.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:08:49 PM
Allegations could have been addressed earlier.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:08:59 PM
Ranking Member didn't ask Kavanaugh about the allegations when she met with him privately or during previous hearing or during a closed session, which Feinstein did not attend.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:09:37 PM
Kavanaugh answered more written questions than any other nominee. Ranking Member only referred allegations to FBI at the eleventh hour.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:10:07 PM
Judge Kavanaugh has had to address these alllegations in the midst of a media circus.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:10:41 PM
According to Grassley's office, we will hear opening statements from the chairman (going on now), and from the ranking Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. Thankfully, since this is a continuation of a pending hearing, we don't have to hear opening statements from all the other committee members.

by Mark Walsh 9/27/2018 2:10:47 PM
Grassley and his staff addressed the allegations the way they have conducted similar investigations in the past. Contacted all the individuals Ford identified and Kavanaugh denied all the allegations.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:11:30 PM
Democrats did not participate in the investigation.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:11:50 PM
If they had wanted to get to the truth, why didn't they participate?

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:12:08 PM
Witnesses named by Ford did not corroborate her statements.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:12:33 PM
The judiciary committee was able to conduct thorough investigations into the allegations. Some colleagues pushed for FBI investigations, but he has no authority to order an FBI investigation.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:13:34 PM
FBI doesn't assess credibility or verify witness statements. Quotes Joe Biden during Justice THomas' hearings re usefulness of FBI reports. FBI does not reach a conclusion, period.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:14:22 PM
They do not reach a conclusion or make recommendations.

by Edith Roberts 9/27/2018 2:14:44 PM
Grassley: Some colleagues have complained that an expert on the Republican side will question the witness (a sex crimes prosecutor). I see no basis for this complaint but for politics.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 2:15:26 PM
Grassley: These issues are difficult, which is why an expert was needed. I can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than Rachel Mitchell.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 2:16:21 PM
Grassley: She has spent working on sexual assault issues and educating others about how to handle them.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 2:17:07 PM
Grassley: There are other allegations. We have not had cooperation from attorneys representing other clients.

by Andrew Hamm 9/27/2018 2:17:33 PM

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)