Tony Mauro, based in Washington, covers the U.S. Supreme Court. A lead writer for ALM's Supreme Court Brief, Tony focuses on the court's history and traditions, appellate advocacy and the SCOTUS cases that matter most to business litigators. Contact him at [email protected]. On Twitter: @Tonymauro
September 21, 2006 | Law.com
High Court Advocate Gets a Little Help From Friends on Missed DeadlineEvery lawyer's nightmare -- inadvertently missing a court filing deadline -- has come true for Roy Englert Jr. Adding to the pain is that the court in question is the Supreme Court. But high court practice, though competitive, is collegial enough that some of Englert's brothers at the bar have rallied to his side. Former Solicitors General Charles Fried and Seth Waxman have filed a brief asking the Court to clarify the rule that Englert ran afoul of and, in the process, to accept his out-of-time petition.
By Tony Mauro
5 minute read
July 02, 2007 | The Recorder
A Mind for BusinessThe Supreme Court's conservative majority made itself felt in the corporate arena more than any other this term, with Justice Samuel Alito consistently siding with big business.
By Tony Mauro
8 minute read
June 18, 2010 | New York Law Journal
Audit of Employee's Pager Messages Ruled Reasonable SearchIn its first ruling on the privacy of workplace texting, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday said that a city audit of an employee's messages on a city-owned pager was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment
By Tony MauroThe National Law Journal
3 minute read
June 22, 2007 | New York Law Journal
Corporate Defendants Prevail at High CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court yesterday made it easier for corporate defendants to seek and win dismissal of lawsuits filed by investors alleging stock fraud or market manipulation. By an 8-1 majority, the Court raised the threshold that plaintiffs must cross in initial pleadings to show that defendants had the intention to deceive or defraud.
By Tony MauroLegal Times
6 minute read
June 13, 2005 | New Jersey Law Journal
Ruling in Medical Marijuana Case Marks Shift for States' RightsSupporters of the use of marijuana for medical purposes will swiftly take their campaign to Congress in the wake of Monday's Supreme Court decision that federal antidrug laws can be enforced against users of medical marijuana in California and nine other states.
By Tony Mauro
6 minute read
May 12, 2010 | Law.com
Law Review Article Could Spell Trouble for Kagan at Confirmation HearingSeveral recent profiles of Elena Kagan imply that she has eyed the Supreme Court almost since high school, and that her reticence about taking strong stands on issues may have been calculated to smooth her path. But such foresight wasn't at work when she wrote a book review published in a 1995 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review. While commenting on Stephen Carter's book on the sorry state of Court confirmation hearings, Kagan offered an analysis that lights up like neon now that Kagan herself is a nominee.
By Tony Mauro
5 minute read
January 22, 2002 | The Legal Intelligencer
High Court Expands Federal Review of State ConvictionsOn the crucial day of his Missouri murder trial in 1994, Remon Lee`s alibi witnesses failed to show up in court. The judge, who said he needed to visit his daughter at a hospital the next day, denied Lee`s request for a continuance.
By Tony Mauro
3 minute read
April 19, 2005 | Law.com
High Court Agrees to Sit Down to Religious Tea CaseThe Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a Bush administration plea to keep members of a New Mexico church from using a hallucinogenic tea in their ceremonies. The administration wants the high court to overturn a November 2004 en banc ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The en banc decision affirmed an earlier injunction that prohibited the government from barring importation and use of the tea, which contains a substance barred under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
By Tony Mauro
3 minute read
February 24, 2010 | National Law Journal
Justices Seem Receptive to First Amendment Challenge to Anti-Terror LawThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared troubled on Tuesday by the broad sweep of a federal law that makes it a crime to give "material support" and "expert advice" to designated terrorist groups. The law was challenged as a vague or overbroad violation of First Amendment rights. But what seemed to bother the justices most was the assertion by U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan that the law would bar a lawyer from writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of such a group in U.S. courts.
By Tony Mauro
5 minute read
Trending Stories