Neal Katyal seemingly tried to educate Justice Samuel Alito about a well-known Latin phrase, Justice Sonia Sotomayor prayed aloud that she wouldn’t be assigned a mind-numbing opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan needled a lawyer who confused her with another justice. Here, Law360 wraps up the top moments of legal levity from the latest high court term.
Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice has emerged as the most talkative at oral arguments — and the title holder should come as no surprise to court watchers.
The justices’ level of engagement at oral argument can provide a crucial window into their thinking on an issue, but interpreting what that might mean for how they’ll rule is an elusive art. Here, Law360 looks at the sessions in which each justice engaged the most.
The federal government will subject all U.S.-bound flights from 280 airports in 105 countries to heightened passenger and aircraft screening procedures as part of a spate of new aviation security directives the Trump administration unveiled Wednesday.
Multiple Iranian-American groups asked a D.C. federal court Tuesday to preliminarily block President Donald Trump’s travel ban as it applies to certain Iranian individuals in same-sex relationships, arguing that they face imminent irreparable harm if they’re forced to return to their home country.
Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, the sponsor of a bill to criminalize undocumented immigrants' presence in the U.S., has been named chairman of the House Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, according to an announcement by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
In Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas seems to have found a U.S. Supreme Court justice after his own heart. The court’s newest member and its most silent one cast identical votes in case after case this year, at times taking positions deemed more conservative than those of their fellow Republican appointees on the court.
The Colorado-based Allott Immigration Law Firm has combined with Louisiana-based Ware Immigration, the managing partner of Allott told Law360 on Tuesday.
“Concurring opinion” can feel like a misnomer when a justice departs from — or downright slams — the reasoning of the majority. Here are the opinions from the latest U.S. Supreme Court term in which the biggest divisions bore the label of agreement.
While there were fewer dissents coming from the U.S. Supreme Court during its October 2016 term than in years past, justices still managed to come up with creative disses and blistering attacks when they were on the losing side. Here, Law360 highlights the term’s top dissents.
The U.S. Department of Justice agency that oversees the nation’s immigration courts pushed back Monday against an advocacy group’s quest to undo a strict interpretation of rules governing attorney appearances, telling a federal court in Seattle that turning a blind eye to enforcement would promote “ghostwritten” filings and decrease transparency.
A Colorado federal judge reopened a lawsuit Tuesday accusing the U.S. State Department of running afoul of the U.S. Constitution and federal law by denying a passport application from an intersex Navy veteran who refused to pick a male or female gender designation.
A Michigan federal judge halted Monday the deportation of all Iraqi immigrants with prior criminal convictions who were recently detained during immigration sweeps across the United States, expanding an earlier stay that applied to Iraqi immigrants detained in Detroit.
With the U.S. Supreme Court allowing President Donald Trump’s travel ban to be enforced against people who don’t have a clear link to the U.S., the question now becomes what exactly will qualify as a "bona fide relationship,” with experts predicting potential confusion, visa delays and additional litigation ahead.
The Supreme Court’s unusual decision on Monday to hold over two cases for reargument next term could put Justice Neil Gorsuch in a position to cast the deciding vote for a conservative majority on key immigration issues as the court considers President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
Despite a contentious confirmation hearing for Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court term itself was mellow this year, with more unanimous cases and fewer controversial decisions. Still, there were a handful of business rulings that packed a punch.
One firm went undefeated at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. Another built on last year’s winning streak. And some high court powerhouses took their lumps. Here, Law360 breaks down how the firms most frequently seen at oral arguments performed this term.
Intellectual property cases took four of the top 10 spots on Law360's ranking of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that attracted the most amicus briefs this term, as disputes involving issues like patent exhaustion and offensive trademarks each generated dozens of amicus filings.
The Eighth Circuit on Monday refused to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that found a man from Nigeria suspected of being a wizard was not entitled to asylum under the Convention Against Torture, finding the Nigerian government has made progress in curbing wizard torture.
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a pair of appeals from unauthorized immigrants maintaining their right to challenge immigration authorities in court on constitutional grounds, according to an order list released Monday.
In December 2015, an amendment to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was implemented with the intent of putting reasonable limits on civil discovery. The many subsequent cases that have applied the amended rules provide guideposts for litigants and practitioners, say Brandee Kowalzyk and Christopher Polston of Nelson Mullins LLP.
The simple practice of asking jurors important and substantive questions early can help make trial by jury a more reliable form of dispute resolution, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
It was a privilege to spend a half-hour on the phone with the nation's foremost First Amendment lawyer. Floyd Abrams and I discussed his career, his new book and what he sees in his free-speech crystal ball. And he was a very good sport when I asked if it is constitutionally protected to yell inside a movie theater: “Citizens United is a terrible decision and should be set on fire,” says Randy Maniloff of White and Williams LLP.
Recent surveys show that law firms won't be able to rely on the flood of associates their business model demands as long as they require them to dedicate all day, most nights, every weekend and all holidays to firm business, says Jill Dessalines, founder of Strategic Advice for Successful Lawyers and former assistant GC at McKesson Corp.
Sensibly enough, in Maslenjak v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a naturalized American cannot be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement. But instead of simply stopping at that result, it invented a new standard of “materiality” that is likely to create havoc in future denaturalization cases, says Leon Fresco of Holland & Knight LLP.
Steps taken by the Trump administration to tighten U.S. border security have signaled a new era in global mobility, both in the United States and throughout the world, in which cross-border travelers should expect more advanced investigation techniques by immigration officers as well as increased scrutiny and examination for even seemingly routine international travel, say attorneys at Mayer Brown LLP.
The guessing game around Justice Anthony Kennedy’s possible retirement is reaching a crescendo. Yet the speculation does more than fuel bookmakers’ odds. It draws attention to his pivotal role as the court’s swing vote, says Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.
One way to combat juror confusion and boredom is to allow jurors to ask witnesses questions. No federal evidentiary or court rule prohibits it, and every federal circuit court to address the practice has held it permissible, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
Last month, the American Bar Association published revised guidance regarding an attorney’s duty to protect sensitive client material in light of recent high-profile hacks. The first step in compliance is understanding how your data is being stored and accessed. There are three key questions you should ask your firm’s information technology staff and/or external solution vendors, says Nick Holda of PreVeil.