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
- Ghost Guns and the Bankruptcy Code: Neither Provides Ammunition for Dismissing Actions - SCOTUS Today
- Eyes on the Evidence: Powerful Legal Presentations – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- Massachusetts High Court To Weigh In on Forfeiture-for-Solicitation Provisions in Era of Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act
- Tougher Immigration Enforcement at the State Level: Tennessee Law Supplements the New Trump Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Policies
- Unusual Combinations of Justices Denying Veterans’ Claim but Requiring Executive to Make Foreign Aid Payments to Contractors - SCOTUS Today