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 :
The Supreme Court heard their last argument of the term yesterday, an appeal of former Virginia governor McDonnell’s conviction for accepting gifts and favors in exchange for “official acts”. I wasn’t there to sketch it. Instead I was covering the sentencing of former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (those sketches will be posted soon).
The last day of argument for me was Monday when the Court heard two cases related to copyright and patents, not usually the most exciting. I could follow the first case, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., which first came to the Supreme Court a couple of terms back and now returns on the issue of awarding attorney fees.
But the second case, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, left me so confused I’ll just post the sketches.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court released three opinions, two of which made news, one of which – Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission – I sketched. I would’ve sketched the opinion in Bank Markazi v Peterson, that upheld a law directing Iranian assets to go to victims of terrorism, except I really couldn’t see much of Justice Ginsburg’s tiny figure hunched behind the bench as she delivered the opinion.
Sketches of the argument in Birchfield v. North Dakota, actually three cases concerning state laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless blood-alcohol test when stopped for DUI, are below.
iPads and smartphones are not normally permitted in the courtroom but an exception was made for members of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association at the Supreme Court on Tuesday for the swearing in ceremony. American Sign Language interpreters were also present, seated in front of the bench right below Justice Kagan.
After the lawyers were presented Chief Justice Roberts used sign-language granting the motion to admit them to the bar. I wasn’t able to actually see the Chief signing as my view was blocked by the lawyers standing in front of me.
I also sketched the argument in United States v. Bryant.
. . . and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, was before the Supreme Court today.
A very large crowd supporting the president’s immigration policy was gathered in front of the Court’s plaza. Some had been there since Friday hoping to get a seat inside the courtroom for the arguments in United States v. Texas. And the courtroom was in fact packed with spectators full of anticipation, hoping to get an inkling as to which way the Justices may rule.
But at the end of the hour and half of mostly technical argument there was little to glean. You an read about it here.
No blockbuster arguments at the Court this week, though a pretty significant 4-4 decision in the teachers’ union case and an unusual call for further briefs on ACA contraception.
I spent most of my time preparing for the final round of arguments in April, penciling in the architecture of the courtroom and getting use to the Justices’ new seating arrangement. Here are the few sketches that I did manage to finish.