Explore

Supreme Court Justices Debate 'Previously Unavailable' Rule in Death Row Case

Supreme Court Justices Debate 'Previously Unavailable' Rule in Death Row Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Guerrero v. Johnson, a case concerning whether a Texas death row inmate, Dexter Johnson, can file a second federal post-conviction challenge to his sentence. Johnson argues that updated psychiatric standards, specifically the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5, now classify him as intellectually disabled, making his execution unconstitutional under Atkins v. Virginia. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 generally bars successive habeas petitions, but an exception exists for claims based on a 'new rule of constitutional law... that was previously unavailable.' Texas Solicitor General William Peterson contended that Atkins was decided before Johnson's crimes, meaning no 'new rule' was 'previously unavailable.' Justices debated the interpretation of 'previously unavailable,' with Justice Elena Kagan suggesting a rule is unavailable if it would have been dismissed in court. Justice Clarence Thomas expressed skepticism about when a r...

Radiolab Podcast Re-examines 'Cruel and Unusual' Punishment in U.S. Death Penalty Debate

Radiolab Podcast Re-examines 'Cruel and Unusual' Punishment in U.S. Death Penalty Debate

Radiolab is re-airing an episode from its 'More Perfect' series that delves into the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment.' The episode, originally aired in 2016, explores the historical and evolving interpretations of this concept within the context of the death penalty in America. It highlights how public opinion, with a majority favoring capital punishment, contrasts with the shifting views within the Supreme Court. The discussion extends beyond legal chambers to include international efforts to challenge the U.S. death penalty system and the reintroduction of older execution methods by states. The re-broadcast also features a new conversation with Harvard law professor Carol Steiker and former death-row inmate Damien Nichols, addressing the current state of the death penalty in 2026, particularly in light of recent events like the botched execution of Christa Pike and considerations of livestreaming firing squad executions. The episode aims to...

Greenberg Traurig Podcast Discusses Immigration Implications of Supreme Court's Blanche v. Lau Decision

Greenberg Traurig Podcast Discusses Immigration Implications of Supreme Court's Blanche v. Lau Decision

Greenberg Traurig's 'Immigration Insights' podcast, hosted by Kate Kalmykov, featured attorneys Jennifer Hermansky and Courtney Brooks discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Blanche v. Lau. This decision allows border officers, under certain circumstances, to treat returning green card holders with pending criminal matters as applicants for admission, even before a conviction. The podcast outlined potential consequences for various groups, including permanent residents, EB-5 investors, families, and traveling employees. It also provided practical guidance on issues such as travel, airport questioning, and Form I-407. Additionally, the discussion covered how employers can respond to these changes while avoiding improper reverification or discrimination, suggesting the use of confidential, counsel-led procedures and preparation for travel-related emergencies.

Maryland Landowners Petition Supreme Court Over Piedmont Power Line Surveys

Maryland Landowners Petition Supreme Court Over Piedmont Power Line Surveys

A group of 60 Maryland landowners has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging lower court rulings that permitted surveyors from PSEG Renewable Transmission to access their properties for studies related to the proposed 67-mile Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project. The landowners, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, argue that the preliminary injunction granted to PSEG went too far by allowing property access before the company's eminent domain rights in Maryland were definitively established. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed PSEG's right to conduct surveys, deeming the landowners' proposal unworkable, as PSEG requires these surveys to obtain approval from the Maryland Public Service Commission. The landowners contend that the appellate court's decision sets a dangerous precedent by authorizing a private entity to enter private property without first proving its sovereign power of eminent domain. The surveys, which began in June 2025, are nearing completion, but...

EFF and ACLU Challenge Constitutionality of Reverse Location Warrants in Ninth Circuit

EFF and ACLU Challenge Constitutionality of Reverse Location Warrants in Ninth Circuit

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU have filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Spurlock. The case concerns a 'tower dump' warrant, which compels cellular providers to disclose location data for all phones within a specified area during a particular timeframe. This legal action follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chatrie v. United States, which determined that 'geofence' warrants, a similar form of reverse location search, constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment. The district court in Spurlock had previously ruled that tower dumps are unconstitutional 'general warrants' but declined to suppress evidence based on the 'good faith doctrine.' The EFF and ACLU argue that such warrants are categorically unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against untargeted surveillance.

Duke Center for Firearms Law Publishes Research Challenging Supreme Court's Historical Interpretation of Gun Laws

Duke Center for Firearms Law Publishes Research Challenging Supreme Court's Historical Interpretation of Gun Laws

The Duke Center for Firearms Law has published new research, detailed in the book 'Gun Law History: How Three-Hundred Years of Weapons Laws Built the Nation,' which challenges the Supreme Court's historical analysis of gun laws, particularly as presented in the 2022 Bruen decision. The research indicates that, contrary to popular belief and some judicial interpretations, weapons laws were historically prevalent and essential to American political development. The study, based on digitized old gun laws, reveals that colonies, states, and localities enacted thousands of gun laws from the 1600s to the early 20th century, covering various restrictions including carry laws, technology advances, and prohibitions for certain individuals. It argues that regulating weapons was the historical norm, not the exception, and that the discretionary nature of laws like the 1911 New York law, which the Court found objectionable, was typical.

Federal Law Enforcement Lacks Transparency in Commercial Data Purchases, Raising Fourth Amendment Concerns

Federal Law Enforcement Lacks Transparency in Commercial Data Purchases, Raising Fourth Amendment Concerns

Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have not provided public transparency regarding their acquisition and use of commercial data from data brokers. This stands in stark contrast to the U.S. intelligence community, which has published frameworks and reports on its commercial data practices. While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released its first report in September 2026 detailing how the intelligence community acquires and uses commercial data, federal law enforcement has offered little to no comparable information. This lack of disclosure extends to the types of data purchased, the volume of personally identifiable information, data pertaining to U.S. citizens, and how this data is utilized. Previous reports, such as a September 2023 DHS inspector general report, have highlighted significant issues with DHS agencies' commercial data purchases, including failures to adhere to privacy policies and a lack ...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to Teach Course at UT School of Civic Leadership in Spring 2027

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to Teach Course at UT School of Civic Leadership in Spring 2027

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is scheduled to teach a one-credit-hour discussion seminar titled 'Equality and the New Birth of Freedom' at the University of Texas (UT) School of Civic Leadership in spring 2027. The course, designed for 17 undergraduate students, will focus on texts by prominent civil rights activists and political figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X. Justice Thomas will be on campus for two hours every morning for one week in February to teach the class. Justin Dyer, dean of the School of Civic Leadership, will facilitate the course throughout the semester, including meeting with students and grading assignments, before Thomas's arrival. This opportunity arose after Thomas expressed interest in teaching following an interaction with UT students during a guest lecture in April. The course is notable for being offered to undergraduates, as Supreme Court justices typically teach at la...

Four Supreme Court Justices Recuse from Copyright Case, Highlighting Quorum Challenges

Four Supreme Court Justices Recuse from Copyright Case, Highlighting Quorum Challenges

Four U.S. Supreme Court justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor—recused themselves from the copyright case 'BMG Rights Management v. Vetter.' This mass recusal left only five justices eligible to participate, falling short of the six-justice quorum required by federal law for the Court to hear a case. As a result, the lower court's judgment was affirmed by default without the Supreme Court resolving the legal questions on their merits. While the justices did not provide specific reasons for their recusals, it is speculated that their book-publishing arrangements with Penguin Random House, whose parent company is affiliated with BMG, may have presented a conflict of interest. The case involved songwriter Cyril Vetter's effort to reclaim worldwide rights to a 1960s hit song.

Seventh Circuit Court Considers Foreign Worker's Right to Sue U.S. Company Over Alleged Forced Labor in China

Seventh Circuit Court Considers Foreign Worker's Right to Sue U.S. Company Over Alleged Forced Labor in China

Seventh Circuit Court Considers Foreign Worker's Right to Sue U.S. Company Over Alleged Forced Labor in China

Sidley Austin LLP Secures Complete Defense Verdict for Monsanto in High-Profile Roundup Trial

Sidley Austin LLP partners Paul Boehm, Michelle Ramirez, and Morgan Branch have been recognized as Litigators of the Week by The American Lawyer for successfully defending Monsanto in a significant Roundup trial in Missouri state court. Following nearly six weeks of proceedings, a St. Louis County jury delivered a unanimous defense verdict after less than two hours of deliberation. This case marks the first Roundup trial to reach a jury since the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2026 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell. The Sidley Austin team discussed their trial strategy, the crucial role of scientific evidence, and the collaborative effort that led to this outcome in an interview with The American Lawyer.

Pottawattamie County Warrants: Understanding the Legal Process for Law Enforcement Actions

Pottawattamie County Warrants: Understanding the Legal Process for Law Enforcement Actions

In Pottawattamie County, warrants serve as crucial legal documents that empower law enforcement to undertake specific actions, such as arrests or searches. These warrants are court orders, signed by a judge, which authorize police officers to proceed with these actions. The process involves officers understanding how to draft an affidavit, which is a sworn statement of facts presented to a judge to establish probable cause. Judges issue arrest warrants based on these affidavits, initiating the legal process for detaining individuals. Similarly, search warrants are obtained through a detailed process where law enforcement must demonstrate sufficient grounds for searching a particular location. This legal framework ensures that police actions are conducted within the bounds of the law, requiring judicial oversight before significant interventions like arrests or searches can occur.