Friday, May 17, 2019
Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send Dan Real a quick email atDReal@Creighton.edu or a message on Twitter (@Daniel_L_Real). You can also send emails to Danny Leavitt at Danny@tsalerno-law.com or a message on twitter @Danny_C_Leavitt.
Supreme Court Opinions and News:
This week included the 65th anniversary of the Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Bd. of Education.
Franchise Tax Bd. Of California v. Hyatt:
On Monday, the Court overruled a 40-year-old precedent and ruled that states may not be sued in the courts of other states. The case concerned a long-running dispute between Gilbert Hyatt and California’s tax authorities over the tax authorities’ power to collect taxes from him after he asserted that he had moved to Nevada and the authorities doubted his claim and began an aggressive investigation. The ruling has little direct impact on the actual issue presented, as many states already grant immunity to other states and shield them from lawsuits, and very few cases even arise where somebody tries to sue a state in another state’s courts. However, the decision could have far-reaching impact based on its discussion of when precedents may be overruled. The Court’s conservative majority voted to overrule an earlier decision, even while acknowledging that litigants had relied on it and incurred a decade’s worth of expenses as a result. Justice Breyer authored a dissent that both argued against overruling the precedent and expressed concern about what opinions the Court might decide to overrule next, “only because five members of a later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.” Some commentators believe the Court’s ruling may foreshadow future rulings on reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade.
Links to more:
· NY Times
On Monday, the Court ruled to allow an enormous antitrust class action against Apple to move forward, allowing customers to attempt to prove that Apple used monopoly power to raise the prices of apps purchased for the iPhone. The lawsuit itself is still in its very early stages, so this ruling does not mean much in terms of the actual outcome or its impact – but the Court’s vote is significant because it allows the case to proceed and allows the biggest legal challenge to Apple in the United States to move on, focusing on the fees that Apple takes on sales made in its App Store.. The opinion was also significant because the 5-4 majority included Justices Kavanaugh in the majority and Gorsuch in the minority.
Links to more:
· NY Times
Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:
Howard Bashman (@HowAppealing) posted an article this week discussing nonprecedential appellate court opinions.
U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office in Birmingham, AL (USAO Northern District Alabama), seeks one or more Assistant United States Attorneys in the Appellate Division, to practice in the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/job/assistant-united-states-attorney-appellate
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office in Ohio (USAO Southern District Ohio), seeks one or more Assistant United States Attorneys in the Appellate Division, to practice in the Sixth Circuit: https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/assistant-united-states-attorney-appellate-5
New Mexico Supreme Court and Court of Appeals seek Chief Appellate Attorneys: https://www.nmcourts.gov/jobs.aspx