The Court has decided two important cases today, United States v. Zubaydah, upholding the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege and rejecting the al Qaeda terrorist leader’s discovery request for information concerning his torture by the CIA, and Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., allowing the intervention of the Kentucky attorney general to assume the defense of the state’s abortion law after the official who had been defending the law decided not to seek further review. Both cases are, at root, about significant issues of public interest and policy—the torture of terrorists and restrictive abortion policies—but neither opinion resolves any such question. Indeed, the lessons learned from each of these cases are essentially procedural, and though the outcomes are determined by significant margins, the alliances of Justices on the multiple opinions published are also instructive.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Even Privilege Logs Can Be Privileged Under the Fifth Amendment
- “Claims” Under the FCA, §1983 Claim Denials on Failure-to-Exhaust Grounds, and Limits to FSIA’s Expropriation Exception - SCOTUS Today
- The 340B Reimbursement Battle: What Hospitals and Insurers Need to Know
- A Ticking Time Bomb—Universal Injunctive Relief at Risk - SCOTUS Today
- CFPB’s Recent Rule Eliminates Medical Debt from Credit Reports