Monday round-up

By Amy Howe
on May 19, 2014 at 7:18 am

On Friday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a new decision in Ryan v. Hurles, an Arizona habeas case that has been repeatedly relisted since late September.  Lyle Denniston explained the state of play for this blog; other coverage comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences.

Briefly:

• At Lawfare, Ingrid Wuerth continues her analysis of the Chief Justice’s views on foreign relations law.  She concludes that, if the government does not prevail in Bond v. United States, “which certainly seems possible based on the oral argument, it will cap off a terrible decade for the Executive Branch in foreign relations cases before the Supreme Court.“
• At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses the Court’s statement in its recent decision in Navarette v. California, in which the Court rejected a challenge to a traffic stop based on an anonymous 911 tipster, that the case was a close one.  He wonders how often, in the future, the Court will make similar admissions.