SCOTUSGate

Uber v. Drammeh, No. 24-1020, asks: Whether federal courts can predict changes in state law under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins.

At this point, there are no specific legal remedies for those who have already been removed under the Proclamation before the district court orders took effect.

Fifth circuit would be much friendlier to deportation with only minimal process.

Trump's SG acknowledges that courts can review whether someone is actually a Tren de Aragua member.

The DC Circuit split three ways on the issue. Judge Henderson found the TRO appealable but declined to stay it. Judge Millett saw no jurisdiction to appeal the TRO. Judge Walker dissented, saying the claims should be in Texas habeas court, not DC.

Trump v. JGG, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang without any due process.

President Trump claims TdA is "conducting irregular warfare" constituting an "invasion."

Trump administration has asked SCOTUS to vacate DC district court orders blocking deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. This rarely-used law lets the President deport "alien enemies" during war or "invasion." Shadow Docket Case No 24A931

www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...

I talked with my students, they are still planning to use AI.

The money quote from one student: "It looks like only a 25% error, which is within my tolerance."

In study, least helpful for NDA drafting -- transactional tasks with template already.

New research shows something I already know: AI isn't just for efficiency; it's actually improving quality! Study finds both reasoning models (OpenAi's o1) and Law-focused tools (Vincent AI) significantly enhanced lawyers' outputs, especially for litigation tasks.

The petition for certiorari is pending, with a response due April 2, 2025. If SCOTUS takes the case, it could reshape felony murder sentencing across the U.S. Stay tuned! ⚖️

Petition filed by a coalition of pro-bono including Eugene Fidell from Yale Law Supreme Court Clinic and Charles Rothfeld.

National Trends: 42 states do not impose mandatory LWOP for felony murder where the defendant didn’t kill or intend to kill. Only 8 states still do. Is there a “national consensus” against this sentencing practice? SCOTUS may say yes.

Colorado itself abolished mandatory LWOP for felony murder in 2021. But the change wasn’t retroactive, so Sellers and others convicted earlier remain sentenced to die in prison. SCOTUS could change that.

Important Precedents: limited death penalty and life sentences for certain defendants.
Enmund v. Florida (1982) – No death penalty for felony murder w/o intent to kill.
Graham v. Florida (2010) – No LWOP for juveniles in non-homicide cases.
Miller v. Alabama (2012) – No mandatory LWOP for juveniles.

Key Facts: Sellers was convicted of felony murder in Colorado. He was 20 at the time, didn’t kill or injure anyone, and had no intent to cause a death. Yet, he received a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” The key question: Does sentencing a 20-year-old to mandatory life in prison for a felony where he didn’t kill or intend to kill go too far? #SCOTUS will weigh in.

#SCOTUS has been asked to decide whether mandatory life without parole (LWOP) for felony murder—when the defendant neither killed nor intended to kill—violates the 8th Amendment. Case: Wayne Sellers, IV v. Colorado (No. 24-941). Here’s what you need to know. 🧵

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

This is part of the BIDEN DOJ’s push to rein in airline consolidation. Will be interesting to see the TRUMP DOJ response.

Circuit Split? American argues the First Circuit wrongly focused on reduced competition between the partners rather than looking at the market as a whole. Other circuits, like the 2nd, 6th, 9th, & 10th, require market-wide harm to prove an antitrust violation.

Key Question for #SCOTUS: Does reduced competition between joint venture partners (even absent higher prices or reduced output marketwide) prove an anticompetitive effect under the rule of reason?

DOJ & State Attorneys General sued, arguing the NEA was an anticompetitive merger in disguise—cutting consumer choice, reducing competition, and harming the market. The district court ruled for the government, and the First Circuit affirmed.

✈️ The Northeast Alliance (NEA): American and JetBlue agreed to coordinate routes, schedules, and share revenue in New York and Boston to compete with Delta & United. But they didn’t merge—they remained independent companies.

The Holding: The First Circuit struck down the NEA, finding that American and JetBlue effectively operated as a single airline in Boston & NYC, eliminating competition. The court found reduced output and route allocation, similar to per se illegal market division.

The Antitrust Standard: Under the Sherman Act, courts apply the rule of reason to most agreements between competitors. This means a 3-step burden-shifting test: (1) Did the agreement harm competition? (2) Did it have procompetitive benefits? (3) Was there a less restrictive alternative?

American Airlines is asking #SCOTUS to review a First Circuit ruling that struck down its Northeast Alliance (NEA) with JetBlue under the Sherman Act. At stake? How courts analyze joint ventures under antitrust law. Here’s the breakdown. 🧵👇 #SCOTUSGate

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?...

Veterans' rights case headed to #SCOTUS? Lott v. Lott questions whether state courts can force veterans to use federally protected disability benefits to satisfy divorce agreements. Petitioner argues this violates Supremacy Clause and contradicts SCOTUS precedent in Howell.
24A835

Labor Corp v. Davis (No. 24-304), already granted this term, addresses similar questions about certifying classes with uninjured members. The Court may hold this case pending that decision or consolidate them.

The stakes are enormous - these "total loss" cases are exploding nationwide with similar claims against all major insurers. Class certification often creates settlement pressure regardless of merit.

The question speaks to the heart of Rule 23(b)(3)'s "predominance" requirement - can common questions predominate if individualized inquiries about each vehicle's value would be needed to determine if any shortchanging occurred?

This creates a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, which held in similar cases that plaintiffs must prove "actual underpayment" to each class member, not just regulatory violations. The dispute impacts countless auto insurance claims nationwide.