Today in the News, 3.5.09
- “The Court’s decision soundly rejects the anti-consumer position of the Bush administration, and reaffirms Congress’ primacy concerning the extraordinary power to preempt state law.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) comments on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, rounding out a tsunami of media coverage of the decision.
- “On the day after oral arguments… lawyers for Massey have asked for permission to include a report detailing West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin’s Massey-related voting record.” The Charleston Gazette reports that lawyers for the respondent in Caperton v. Massey Coal want to show the Court evidence that Judge Benjamin actually voted against Massey over 80% of the time. More here.
- “After Trying To Abolish Filibusters Of Judicial Nominees In ‘05, GOP Threatens To Filibuster Obama’s Nominees.” Think Progress gets to the point, following inadequate media coverage of this week’s letter from Republican Senators to President Obama. (Lots more from PFAW’s RightWingWatch.)
More from
January 10, 2025
January 13, 2025
CAC (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case
Trump’s attorney general pick must navigate lobbying background
Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s pick to be the next attorney general, worked for years at...
January 13, 2025
CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
U.S. Supreme Court
Riley v. Garland
In Riley v. Garland, the Supreme Court is considering whether the deadline for appealing an immigration removal order is jurisdictional.
January 9, 2025
January 2025 Newsletter: Our Mission of Constitutional Accountability Continues in 2025
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitRyan L.L.C. v. Federal Trade Commission
In Ryan L.L.C. v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the FTC’s rule restricting the use of noncompete clauses.