SCOTUS NEWS

Justices decline to reinstate Ohio man’s attempted murder conviction

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea to reinstate an Ohio man’s conviction for attempted murder. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s announcement that it would not intervene in the case, in an eight-page opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito.

Thomas was sharply critical of the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which had thrown out David Smith’s 22-year conviction and sentence for a brutal attack on Quortney Tolliver in 2016. He called the court’s ruling the “latest example of the practice” of “disregarding” the stringent limits that federal law places on the power of federal courts to invalidate state criminal convictions.

The justices’ denial of relief in Davis v. Smith came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 24. The justices added three new cases, two of which were consolidated, to their docket for the 2024-25 term on Friday afternoon. As expected, they did not grant review in any additional cases on Monday morning.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, Jan. 27

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• Trump administration asks Supreme Court to pause cases as it reconsiders policy (Andrew Chung, Reuter) 
• Supreme Court to weigh constitutionality of nation’s first religious charter school (John Fritze, CNN)
• Idaho Lawmakers Want Supreme Court to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Amy Harmon, The New York Times)
• Could the Supreme Court Back Trump on Birthright Citizenship? (Nia Prater, New York Magazine)
• The Federal Government as a Party (Steve Vladeck, One First)

Petitions of the week

Mississippi’s permanent felony voting ban returns to the court

The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution generally permits states to strip people convicted of felonies of their right to vote. Widespread at the time, that practice has since fallen out of favor in many states, although a minority still disenfranchise people who commit serious, non-election-related crimes. This week, we highlight petitions asking the court to consider, among other things, whether a provision of Mississippi’s constitution that permanently bars anyone convicted of a laundry list of nonviolent felonies from voting violates the federal Constitution.

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Supreme Court likely to let vape company’s FDA challenge proceed

At oral arguments earlier this week the Supreme Court was skeptical of the Food and Drug Administration’s effort to block a North Carolina-based company from challenging the denial of its application to market e-cigarettes in the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana.

During 72 minutes of oral arguments, almost all of the justices peppered Vivek Suri, the assistant to the U.S. solicitor general representing the FDA, with a barrage of questions. Ryan Watson, who argued on behalf of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and a group of retailers based in Texas and Mississippi, primarily fielded questions from just two justices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – a promising sign for his clients.

The question comes to the court as part of the FDA’s efforts to regulate the multibillion-dollar vaping industry. In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gives the FDA the power to regulate tobacco products and requires manufacturers to obtain the FDA’s permission before putting a new tobacco product on the market. In 2016, the FDA issued a rule indicating that the law applies to e-cigarettes and e-liquids.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, Jan. 24

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Supreme Court clears way for corporate transparency law to take effect (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post)
• Corporate Transparency Act Still Blocked Despite Supreme Court Decision (Mengqi Sun, The Wall Street Journal)
• New Research Finds Potential Alternative to Abortion Pill Mifepristone (Pam Belluck & Emily Bazelon, The New York Times)
• On the Credibility of the Department of Justice (Steve Vladeck, One First)
• Who Wins at the Supreme Court? Exploring the Patterns of Victory in Major Case Areas (Adam Feldman, Legalytics)