Tony Mauro

March 27, 2003 | Law.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rescued IOLTA programs from a vigorous constitutional attack, ruling 5-4 that states may pool clients' escrow funds in bank accounts and give the interest to legal aid programs. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Court assumed the IOLTA programs amount to a taking, albeit a minimal one, but that they are used for a valid public purpose.

By Tony Mauro

6 minute read

October 09, 2006 | Texas Lawyer

During oral arguments Oct. 3 in an immigrants' rights case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a reference to one of the parties, a Mexican man who has been deported back to his country, as someone unlikely to keep from drinking tequila on the chance he could return to the United States. The comment raised eyebrows in the audience and offended some who were told about the remark afterward, on the grounds that it perpetuates stereotypes about Mexicans.

By Tony Mauro

5 minute read

June 28, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

Many assume that if confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan's votes on the court will come out pretty much the same way as those of her predecessor, Justice John Paul Stevens. But two separate reports issued Wednesday suggest that Kagan may part company with Stevens in cases involving religious liberty. The reports highlight her views on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, suggesting she may chart a different course.

By Tony Mauro

3 minute read

November 30, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday appeared ready to accept Bush administration arguments that California's medical marijuana law interferes too much with federal efforts to combat illicit drugs.

By Tony Mauro

8 minute read

July 05, 2004 | Texas Lawyer

Just before the U.S. Supreme Court convened for its final sitting of the term on June 29, solicitor general Theodore Olson was asked how long it would take for him to recover from the defeats the court had handed him the day before on the legal rights of enemy combatants and Guantanamo detainees.

By Tony Mauro

10 minute read

March 22, 2002 | New Jersey Law Journal

After the high court agreed in January to review her case, Jennifer Harbury took the virtually unheard of step of arguing it herself, taking over from counsel who had won below. Court-watchers crowded the gallery to see how the Harvard-trained lawyer would do before justices who prize detached discussion of the issues over passion and self-interest.

By Tony Mauro

9 minute read

July 22, 2003 | The Legal Intelligencer

Seven weeks before the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, squabbles have broken out among plaintiffs challenging the law over how to divide up the face time before the justices.

By Tony Mauro

5 minute read

March 12, 2008 | Law.com

In a set of videos posted on the Web, all but one of the Supreme Court justices answer questions about brief writing, oral advocacy and their love-hate relationships with the written word. It's as if the College of Cardinals took to the Web to unlock the secrets of choosing a pope.

By Tony Mauro

7 minute read

October 10, 2006 | Law.com

In his financial disclosure form for the year 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reported that he owned up to $50,000 of common stock in the Duke Energy Corp. Duke Energy is also the respondent in a major environmental case set for argument Nov. 1 at the high court. As federal law requires justices and judges to recuse in cases in which they hold a financial interest, "however small," how is it that Breyer has not yet recused in the case?

By Tony Mauro

5 minute read

August 20, 2007 | Law.com

Now that Solicitor General Paul Clement has weighed in on what could be the biggest securities case before the Supreme Court in decades, the next big mystery is how many justices will participate. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Stephen Breyer initially recused in the case, but rumors are circulating that one or both might rejoin. The notion of justices "unrecusing" causes discomfort among some ethics experts. But a new -- and little-noticed -- federal law may be encouraging the practice.

By Tony Mauro

7 minute read