The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (June 17, 2019), reaffirming the “dual-sovereignty doctrine”—under which “a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute,” slip op. at 1—is a goldmine for politically motivated state […]
I’ve previously written about Justice Kavanaugh’s and Justice Gorsuch’s brilliant legal writing styles. For example, in Newest Justices’ Dueling Opinions Sparkle (For The Defense, June 2019), I describe how they squared off last March, writing the majority and dissenting opinions, respectively, in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, No. 17-1104 (6-3 decision rejecting the
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his staunchly conservative views. He is not whom you might expect to cast a deciding vote that favors class-action plaintiffs. But that is exactly what he did on May 28 in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471. In fact, Justice Thomas authored the Court’s 5-4
Justice Thomas Challenges Congress To Learn How To Say What It Means Read More »
On May 13, the Supreme Court issued yet another opinion that facilitates, if not encourages, the filing of False Claims Act qui tam suits against federal government contractors, health care providers, and other recipients of federal payments or funds. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held in Cochise Consultancy, Inc.,
Supreme Court Delivers Another Qui Tam Setback to Government Contractors Read More »
Thank you Law 360 subscribers for making my op-ed, A Broader View of the US Supreme Court Bar, that publication’s second-most-read expert analysis during the week of April 22. Law 360 subscribers can access the op-ed here, and anyone can download a copy by clicking above. Earlier in April, I had posted the op-ed on
Law360 Op-Ed on “the Supreme Court Bar” Attracts Wide Readership Read More »
Groucho Marx famously said “I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.” Unlike Groucho’s club, the Supreme Court Bar is a “club” in which a multitude of talented appellate lawyers throughout the United States—not just an elite handful of marquee players—can be, should be, and in fact are,
Redefining “the Supreme Court Bar” Read More »
The Supreme Court’s February 26, 2019 opinion in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094, unanimously holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. In other words, no matter what the circumstances, federal appellate courts cannot consider interlocutory appeals of district court class-action certification decisions if a review petition is filed
San Francisco’s “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Ordinance” was too much to swallow even for the Ninth Circuit. On January 31 the court issued an en banc ruling requiring that the ordinance be preliminarily enjoined on the ground that its mandatory warning about the alleged health effects of sugary soft drinks chills commercial free speech, and thus,
Sweet Victory for Free Speech Read More »
Early in law school, one of my esteemed (but perhaps grammatically challenged) professors explained that the key to understanding any case is figuring out “who is suing who, and why?” On January 15, the Justices very well may have been asking themselves that question during the Supreme Court’s hearing in Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471. In
Who is Suing Who, and Why? Read More »
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first Supreme Court opinion is a model of stylistic clarity and judicial restraint. Writing for a unanimous Court, his January 8, 2019 opinion in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272, holds that where parties have agreed in a contract that an arbitrator—rather than a court—should decide whether
Kavanaugh’s Debut Opinion Vindicates Trump’s High Court Pick Read More »
