Tony Mauro

March 30, 2010 | National Law Journal

U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared hostile on Monday toward so-called "foreign-cubed" securities fraud class actions in which the plaintiffs and stock issuers are foreign and the alleged fraud took place on foreign soil. International companies and foreign governments including France, the United Kingdom and Australia filed briefs in the case arguing against jurisdiction in the U.S. for such suits, expressing concern that U.S. courts will interfere with the policy choices they have made in regulating securities.

By Tony Mauro

4 minute read

July 31, 2007 | The Recorder

Alexandria, Va., lawyer Alan Gura is leading the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, which he says the "territorial" NRA has only reluctantly joined. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could be forced to decide what the Second Amendment really means.

By Tony Mauro

9 minute read

May 23, 2005 | National Law Journal

The beef industry's marketing program and its slogan "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" withstood a First Amendment challenge Monday, with a Supreme Court ruling that it amounts to government speech that the government can control. The 6-3 ruling marked the third time in eight years that the high court has ruled on federal marketing programs that assess fees on producers. "There is a lot of litigation ... on programs like this, and it's been in disarray and on hold waiting for this decision," said one attorney.

By Tony Mauro

4 minute read

March 01, 2006 | Law.com

Ending nearly 20 years of litigation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the federal Hobbs Act does not outlaw the kind of violence that anti-abortion protesters have used to block access to abortion clinics nationwide. The ruling blunts a tool that clinics have used to win large financial damages against protesters. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Congress intended the Hobbs Act to cover violence associated with more commerce-related crimes of robbery and extortion, not abortion protests.

By Tony Mauro

3 minute read

April 03, 2007 | National Law Journal

Adding its voice to growing alarm over global warming, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered the EPA to take a fresh look at the problem with an eye toward regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from cars. The ruling is a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, which argued that such gases are not air pollutants under the meaning of the Clean Air Act. The decision revealed divisions among justices over the issue of standing, as well as whether the Court should have anything to say at all about the environment.

By Tony Mauro

5 minute read

May 29, 2008 | Law.com

Isaac Lidsky, the Supreme Court's first blind law clerk, will soon be taking on the reading-intensive job that entails digesting hundreds of petitions and writing memos and rough drafts of decisions. "I'm not out to set records, and I've been very fortunate in my life," he says. "For many others with vision impairment, it's a different story."

By Tony Mauro

7 minute read

May 17, 2005 | Law.com

The Supreme Court gave a cork-popping victory to winemakers Monday, striking down state laws that barred consumers from receiving direct shipments of wines from out-of-state wineries. The 5-4 decision caps a 20-year campaign by the wine industry to overturn states' protective laws, which the Court's majority found violate the commerce clause of the Constitution. "This is the best day for wine-lovers since the invention of the corkscrew," said Clint Bolick, who argued on behalf of the winemakers.

By Tony Mauro

4 minute read

May 05, 2005 | Law.com

In a new study entitled "The Illusion of Devil's Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow their Decisions During Oral Argument," Sarah Shullman came up with a surprisingly simple and accurate way of predicting outcomes based on the number and tenor of oral argument questions by justices. After seven of the 10 cases she studied were decided, Shullman looked for correlations -- and found them.

By Tony Mauro

7 minute read

July 18, 2005 | Law.com

Three Sentences. That was all it took for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Thursday night to calm rampant speculation that his retirement was imminent. But like any words that emanate from the Supreme Court, the statement is subject to interpretation -- even detection of hidden, originalist or modern "living Constitution" meanings. Tony Mauro offers some alternate and whimsical theories, and finds those three sentences vexing to interpret, especially when read aloud in different tones of voice.

By Tony Mauro

4 minute read

March 22, 2004 | Law.com

When California atheist Michael Newdow rises on Wednesday to tell the Supreme Court that the words �under God� don't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools, he will truly stand alone. Most lawyers bring one or two colleagues to counsel's table. But Newdow isn't like most lawyers. As of last week Newdow, a litigant taking the rare step of arguing his own case, planned to have no one with him as his quixotic and controversial battle culminates in his first oral argument before the Court.

By Tony Mauro

10 minute read