High Court Embrace For Seed Patent

•      
  • Subscription Required

Tony Mauro

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court that is often skeptical of patents embraced a key seed patent on Monday in the case of a Monsanto Co. soybean variety that was being replicated by savvy farmers.

The Justices Confront a Solomonic Task

Vivian Berger

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that pits the interests of a white, would-be adoptive couple, to whom a Latina biological mother surrendered her baby girl at birth, against those of the natural father and his Cherokee tribe.

Marcia Coyle on writing The Roberts Court

The National Law Journal's senior reporter Jenna Greene interviews Chief Washington Correspondent Marcia Coyle about her new book, The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution.

Letter to the Editor: Reading Too Much into Minor Case

Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court counsel of the National Association of Attorneys General, responds to Simon Lazarus' NLJ piece about the implications of Wos v. E.M.A.

'Miranda' and the Constitution

Erwin Chemerinsky

It has become increasingly evident that the Justice Department violated the constitutional rights of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by questioning him without his Miranda warnings. It is disturbing that the DOJ would risk its criminal prosecution by ignoring such basic rules and even more disturbing for what this says as to its view of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Cooled to Court's Cold War Plan

•      
  • Subscription Required

Tony Mauro

The Supreme Court has been criticized for failing to heed the wake-up call of 9/11 and not making contingency plans for the continuity of the institution if disaster strikes. New historical research suggests that indifference goes back decades into Cold War days, when the court first embraced, than dropped, plans to relocate the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, N.C., in the face of a nuclear threat.

Failure to Mirandize Does Not Violate Constitution or 'Miranda'

Malvina Halberstam

Much of the discussion in the media on whether the surviving Boston bombing suspect should have been given Miranda warnings when he was arrested appears to be based on a misconception: that law enforcement officers are required to give suspects the warnings set forth in Miranda v. Arizona and that failure to do so is a violation of the law, at least if the public-safety exception doesn't apply. That is not correct.

Supreme Court Bar Shows Verrilli Some Love

•      
  • Subscription Required

Tony Mauro

After a tough year for Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., veterans of the U.S. Supreme Court bar gave him a collective bear hug recently, praising his integrity and abilities as a top-notch advocate.

'Miranda' and the Constitution

Erwin Chemerinsky

It has become increasingly evident that the Justice Department violated the constitutional rights of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by questioning him without his Miranda warnings. It is disturbing that the DOJ would risk its criminal prosecution by ignoring such basic rules and even more disturbing for what this says as to its view of the Constitution.

Failure to Mirandize Does Not Violate Constitution or 'Miranda'

Malvina Halberstam

Much of the discussion in the media on whether the surviving Boston bombing suspect should have been given Miranda warnings when he was arrested appears to be based on a misconception: that law enforcement officers are required to give suspects the warnings set forth in Miranda v. Arizona and that failure to do so is a violation of the law, at least if the public-safety exception doesn't apply. That is not correct.

High Court Defends Consumer Rights and Economic Freedom

Robert Steinbuch

Given any ambiguity, as Justice Anthony Kennedy has aptly proclaimed in his book, "the tie goes to freedom." That is what the court did in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons.

'Supreme Law'—for Medicaid Patients or Just Business?

Simon Lazarus

At stake, in practical terms, is whether the supremacy clause empowers individual beneficiaries to get into court to redress state violations of Medicaid or other federal spending clause-based statutory requirements.

The Compelling Case for Cameras

Tony Mauro

The notion that spectators have to camp out or spend money to see a public institution do public business is offensive. It is the direct result of the high court's refusal to allow its proceedings to be broadcast.