Wednesday round-up
on Mar 5, 2014 at 8:52 am
This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in the securities class-action case Halliburton Inc. v. Erica P. John Fund. Ronald Mann previewed the argument for this blog; other coverage and commentary come from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Chanakya Sethi at Slate, and Andrew Pincus at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog.
The Court issued two decisions yesterday. In Law v. Siegel, the Court held that the home of an individual who files for bankruptcy remains exempt even when the individual’s egregious conduct results in substantial litigation costs. Ronald Mann analyzed the decision for this blog. And in Lawson v. FMR LLC, the Court held that the anti-retaliation protection provided to whistleblowers by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies to employees of private companies that contract with public companies. Nina Totenberg covered the decision for NPR.
Briefly:
- Writing for the Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on the news that a spectator’s protest during last week’s oral arguments (which Art Lien covered for this blog) was redacted from the argument audio released at the end of the week.
- Also at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog, Brian Netter covers this week’s grant in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, in which the Court will consider whether employees must be compensated for time spent in security screenings.
- In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on Elane Photography v. Willock, a case scheduled for consideration at the Justices’ Conference in late March. At issue in the case is whether a New Mexico couple who operate a wedding photography business can decline to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony. (Lyle reported on the case when it was originally filed.)
- At Forbes, Michael Bobelian discusses last week’s oral arguments in the greenhouse gas cases, observing that, although “the Court added half an hour to the oral arguments, what went largely unspoken was that the best solution to the statutory quandary would have been a legislative one.”
- At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie reports on Monday’s oral argument in Hall v. Florida, the challenge to Florida’s scheme for identifying defendants who are intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in Halliburton.]
