Find the Right Lawyer for Your Case

On April 15, the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office released a remarkable three-sentence statement. In that statement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called remarks that she had recently made about a colleague “inappropriate” and “hurtful,” and she indicated that she had apologized to that individual.Although Sotomayor did not identify the colleague by name, anyone paying attention knew to whom she was referring: Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, at an April 7 appearance at the University of Kansas Law School, Sotomayor criticized Kavanaugh for his solo concurrence in Noem v. Perdomo, a case involving immigration stops. In that opinion, Kavanaugh explained why he thought the stay preventing some of the government’s such practices was warranted. Even if U.S.

When you hear “courts and AI,” what comes to your mind? Likely the many recent articles about lawyers making costly, AI-generated mistakes or the growing debate over whether AI bots make for good judges. Against this (somewhat depressing) backdrop, the On the Docket project is hoping to show that AI can improve public engagement with the Supreme Court by presenting the justices’ work in new ways. During and after Wednesday’s argument in Mullin v. Doe, a case on whether the Trump administration properly ended temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals, On the Docket released videos that paired the actual audio from the courtroom with AI-generated visuals.Week in ReviewThe court heard five arguments this week, during the second half of the April sitting.

On Wednesday evening, the group of “non-African American” voters who prevailed earlier in the day in their challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map asked the Supreme Court to bypass its normal 32-day waiting period and send a copy of its opinion and order to the lower court immediately, making the decision final. The voters told the justices that the Louisiana Legislature “is considering pushing back” the deadlines for the state’s congressional primaries to allow them “to occur under a remedial map.” If it does shift the deadlines, they argued, “[t]hose 32 days could matter,” because of the short timeframe in which the state would need to revise the map.

Updated on Apr. 30 at 8:35 p.m. Yesterday’s argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v Amarin Pharma showed a bench once again dubious about litigation trying to hold a large company responsible for the actions of others that it does not control. The specific dispute here involves a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, Hikma, whose product can be dispensed for uses that both do and do not infringe on patents. The suit is brought by Amarin, which holds patents on uses of the branded pharmaceutical Vascepa, a medication to reduce heart disease for which Hikma’s product is a substitute. Specifically, Amarin seeks to hold Hikma responsible when pharmacists dispense Hikma’s generic product for uses that infringe on its patents.