- “The Supreme Court should…reaffirm that the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto lawmaking forbids states from skirting constitutional scrutiny by simply labeling penalties as ‘civil'” [Ilya Shapiro and Nathan Harvey on Cato certiorari brief in Bethea v. North Carolina]
- Interesting: arguments that might work for progressive litigation outcomes in a more conservative Supreme Court [Daniel Hemel, Take Care]
- Notable cert grants: continued viability of Illinois Brick indirect purchaser doctrine [Cory Andrews, WLF on Apple v. Pepper iPhone antitrust litigation] Arbitration returns in two cases on class arbitration [Steptoe on Lamps Plus v. Varella; more, FedSoc with J. Michael Connolly] and delegation of arbitrability [Peter Phillips on Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.] Court will revisit retaliatory-arrest First Amendment issue [Eugene Volokh on Nieves v. Bartlett, last year’s case]
-
Gundy v. U.S., on whether Congress can delegate to the Attorney General the range of punishable conduct under the sex offender registry law SORNA, might revive vitality of non-delegation doctrine with far-reaching consequences [Trevor Burrus and Reilly Stephens on Cato brief; Damon Root, Reason; Matthew Cavedon and Jonathan Thomas Skrmetti, Federalist Society; more, FedSoc “Courthouse Steps” before and after, Randolph May, Georgetown/FedSoc panel with Todd Gaziano and Amanda Shanor, moderated by Evan Bernick, for FedSoc’s “Necessary and Proper” podcast] Law authorizing Homeland Security secretary to waive other laws to build border wall delegates too much legislative power to executive branch [Ilya Shapiro on Cato cert amicus on non-delegation doctrine in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Department of Homeland Security]
- This is really something: argument that maybe it’s unconstitutional to have too conservative a Supreme Court [David Orentlicher, PrawfsBlawg]
- High court should review whether California state commission can force grape growers to pay for industry ads [Ilya Shapiro and Michael Finch on Cato amicus seeking cert in Delano Farms v. California Table Grape Commission]
Filed under: constitutional law, Supreme Court
2 Comments
The civil/criminal distinction, if it is to be retained for ex post facto law purposes has to have some reality—we have a constitutional panoply of rights, one of which is NOT to have to tell the government where we are, where we can live etc. When these are taken away, the punishment IS criminal, and should have to be embodied in the criminal judgment at the time it is entered.
what about communities that ban convicted sex offenders from moving there if they were not already “citizens of that community”? I understand that for some classes of those crimes, the recitivism rate is supposedly high, but, this is the U.S. and anything not specifically taken in the constitution is held by the people or the state. On the other hand, how do general policies or laws (not sure which they are), like parole and such are actually presented at time of sentencing? I haven’t actually formed an informed opinion on this, only the kneejerk reaction of adding stuff after the fact is bad.