It’s spring time in February! One needs to be outside, so I’ll just quickly post the sketches from this short President’s week at the Supreme Court.
Monday saw arguments in the cross-border shooting case, Hernandez v. Mesa . . .
. . . and arguments on the EEOC’s subpoena authority in McLane Co. v. EEOC.
On Tuesday my plan to begin work on a couple wide shots of the Court was sidelined when Invanka Trump showed up in the courtroom with her daughter. The need to get the sketch out caused me to miss that day’s argument.
So much is going on right now I’ll just post the sketches from three of this week’s arguments – Lynch v. Dimaya, Lee v. Tam, and Ziglar v. Abbasi – and leave it at that.
Last Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments about the level of benefits school districts are required to provide to children with disabilities. Here are my sketches of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District :
The justices heard arguments yesterday in two redistricting cases, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris. The same two lawyers argued both, switching between appellant and appellee.
On Tuesday Justice Ginsburg announced the first opinion of the Court in a double-jeopardy case, Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S., argued on the first day of the term. Ginsburg spoke at length despite a severe hoarseness that made it hard to understand, and naturally that led to some speculation about her health. Once the argument got under way, though, she participated as vigorously as usual.
The Court heard three arguments this week, only two of which I sketched. Tuesday’s case, Moore v. Texas, was about the standard used to determine if a Texas death row inmate is too intellectually disabled to be executed.
Wednesday’s immigrant detention argument in Jennings v. Rodriguez pitted the plenary powers doctrine (I had to look that up) versus judicial review.
. . . and outside the it was a very soggy couple of days . . .
With the election of Donald Trump to president and his promise to appoint a new justice in the mold of Justice Scalia it appears that not much will change on the Court in the near future.
On the dreary morning after, visitors to the Supreme Court still lined up on the plaza, members of the bar still gather by the statue of John Mashall, and the justices still took to the bench to hear arguments. The only thing remarkable, and it may mean nothing, was that Justice Ginsburg appeared to be wearing her “dissent jabot.” It’s a kind of collar, not exactly a traditional jabot, with rhinestones that the justice wears when announcing a dissent from the bench. Whether she wore it to make a subtle statement or it was just the first thing she grabbed out of her jabot closet, I don’t know. But I also noticed she wore no earrings, which, for a justice know for her sense of style, is not usual.
And so, for now, life goes on. Below are my sketches of the week’s arguments.
Posted in Arguments
, Supreme Court
Tagged with: Elections
, Fair Housing Act
, Federal Vacancies Reform Act
, Justice Ginsburg
Monday was halloween so I had a little fun with the SCOTUSblog banner.
It was also the day Wonder, the goldendoodle service dog, visited the Court, though only outside.
I was hoping Wonder would be accompany his young charge, Ehlena Fry, into the building even though Wonder is officially retired. The Fry family was at the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, a case originating from their battle with the school to allow Ehlena a service dog.
Below are sketches from the argument in Fry, as well as three other arguments heard this week: Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, State Farm Fire and Casualty v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, and Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday morning – a third argument was heard in the afternoon, but I didn’t sketch that one.
The first case, Samsung Electronics v. Apple, involves the design patents of Apple’s iPhone. Samsung, having lost in the lower courts, was ordered to pay Apple all the profits from smartphones that copied design elements of the iPhone, close to $400 million. Samsung naturally argues that such an outsized award is unfair considering their smartphones are more than just the package.
In the second case, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the justices were asked to make an exception to the rule that jurors cannot testify about deliberations. Here one of the jurors expressed a strong racial bias against the defendant and his alibi witness, both of whom are Hispanic.
Here are sketches from three of the five cases argued in the Supreme Court during this first week of the October 2016 term (wish I hadn’t skipped Tuesday’s bank fraud argument, Shaw v. U.S., and missed Justice Breyer’s Kardashian hypothetical ).
Tuesday’s collateral estoppel double-jeopardy case, Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S. :
Wednesday’s insider trading case, Salman v. U.S. :
. . . and the Texas racial bias in death penalty arguments in Buck v. Davis :