“I would have thought this would have been fixed by now,” says Lisa S. Blatt, a partner with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer who has argued 35 cases—more than any other woman—before the Supreme Court.
Aug 1, 2018 2:30 AM CDT
Lisa Blatt: “You have to be not just fearless but aggressive.” Photo by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.
" />
A recent Supreme Court decision addresses a dilemma that would challenge any lawyer—how to respond if a client refuses to confess to a capital crime when the lawyer believes such a strategy may be the only way to avoid a death sentence.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares potential landmark decisions, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch nears the end of his first full term. Conservatives have generally been pleased with what they have seen, while liberals say their concerns have been confirmed.
If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to retire under President Trump, he would be following a long tradition of justices consciously leaving the court under a president of the same party who appointed them. A more complicated question is whether justices also seek to time their retirements with political or ideological goals in mind—and whether they have been successful.
In South Dakota v. Wayfair, set for argument today before the U.S. Supreme Court, justices will consider whether to overrule its 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and uphold a law that requires most out-of-state internet retailers to collect sales tax.
A law aimed largely at the field of crisis pregnancy centers, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, will be argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court.
How far can law enforcement authorities go when seeking electronically stored information outside the United States? The U.S. Supreme Court takes up this issue Tuesday in United States v. Microsoft.
Larry Harmon, a software engineer and U.S. Navy veteran from Kent, Ohio, typically has voted in presidential and gubernatorial elections. But starting with the 2010 midterms and continuing into the…
The Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States, being heard by the court Wednesday, will affect cell towers and individuals’ data from email, smart watches, activity-tracker bands and smart appliances.
In Pavan v. Smith, the court issued a per curiam decision, over the published dissent of three justices, that requires the state of Arkansas to treat the issuance of birth certificates for the children of same-sex married couples exactly as it does for opposite-sex married couples.
This Supreme Court term turned out to be important for civil procedure, with three significant rulings on personal jurisdiction—when a court has control of the particular parties in a case.
Could this be the end of out-of-town patent lawyers flocking to Marshall, Texas? They’ve become known for showing up in luxury cars, ordering catered gourmet meals for their trial war rooms and running up expensive hotel tabs. That’s the future some observers predict for the top destination for patent infringement lawsuits after a U.S. Supreme Court decision limited the venues where such suits may be filed.
Many observers believe the U.S. Supreme Court can—and should—decide more cases. Now come two legal scholars with a radical proposal for adding to the court’s docket. Not by finding more cases that are clearly worthy of cert, by whatever standard, they say, but by just adding more cases—at random.
The ABA Journal wants to host and facilitate conversations among lawyers about their profession. We are now accepting thoughtful, non-promotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors.
.png)
Lisa Blatt: “You have to be not just fearless but aggressive.” Photo by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.
" />
Flickr Creative Commons
" />
Flickr Creative Commons
" />
Shutterstock
" />