SCOTUSGate

The Court has asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on Thomas Crowther et al. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia et al., which asks whether Title IX gives employees of federally funded schools a private right to sue for sex discrimination.

We've got the full Cox v. Sony docket if you want to dig into the contributory infringement question being argued. Might help as you track how this one unfolds. https://scotusgate.com/case.php?number=24-171

The Betamax legacy lives on. Cox Communications v. Sony is wrestling with contributory infringement questions that trace directly back to that ruling. https://scotusgate.com/case.php?number=24-171

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Cox Communications Inc et al v Sony Music Entertainment et al, a case asking how far ISP liability extends when subscribers use their service to infringe copyrights.

The Supreme Court will take up Okello T. Chatrie v. United States, examining whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment and whether evidence obtained from such warrants must be excluded. https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=supreme-court-to-weigh-geofence-warrants-and-the

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a dispute over whether Mississippi can require mail ballots to arrive by Election Day rather than just be postmarked by then. https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=mississippi-mail-ballot-deadline-dispute-heads-to

When can a government employer punish a worker for speech made off the clock? That question is before the Court in Hedgepeth v. Britton, and amici are now weighing in. Read our full analysis here: https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=off-duty-speech-and-public-employees-hedgepeth

The government is asking SCOTUS to take up United States v. Cockerham, defending the federal felon-in-possession gun ban under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge. Full analysis here: https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=government-petitions-scotus-to-revive-felon-gun

The federal government has filed an amicus brief supporting a stay application in Malliotakis v. Williams, a New York redistricting case now before the Supreme Court. https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=new-york-redistricting-stay-application-draws-us

Reed v. Goertz is back at the Court. After SCOTUS ruled Reed's DNA testing suit was timely in 2023, the case returns on the merits. The question now: does a Texas DA's refusal to test DNA evidence violate due... https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=reed-v-goertz-returns-court-considers-dna-testing

The Court heard oral argument in *Little v. Hecox*, a challenge to Idaho's law limiting women's sports participation to biological females. The question: does such a law violate the Equal Protection Clause? https://scotusgate.com/post.php?slug=idahos-womens-sports-law-reaches-oral-argument-at

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?