Thursday round-up
At Bloomberg Law, Lydia Wheeler reports that after oral argument yesterday in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, which involves the interpretation of a statute of limitations in the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, “[a] majority of justices … seem to think posting 401(k) plan documents online isn’t enough for companies to shorten the amount of time participants have to sue plan managers for mishandling investments.” Andrew Chung reports at Reuters that “[c]onservative and liberal justices alike seemed to sympathize with the former Intel employee who filed suit in 2015 claiming he did not have ‘actual knowledge’ of the alleged investment problems because he did not read the relevant documents that were only posted online.”

Daniel Hemel analyzes Tuesday’s argument in Rodriguez v. FDIC, involving how courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated corporate group, for this blog. At Quartz, Ephrat Livni writes that the argument “seemed to leave the justices confused but curious.” At E&E News, Pamela King reports that during Tuesday’s second oral argument, in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, which asks whether federal law preempts state-law claims for cleanup of hazardous waste beyond what the EPA has ordered, the justices “grappled with questions of landowners’ role in EPA’s complex scheme for hazardous waste cleanups.”

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that Monday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s since-repealed limits on transporting personal firearms, offers “a window into the dynamics of today’s Supreme Court.” At Ars Technica (via How Appealing), Timothy Lee looks at Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., which was also argued on Monday and which asks whether Georgia’s annotated legislative code can be copyrighted, observing that “[i]f the Supreme Court buys Georgia’s argument, it will create a legal minefield for organizations like PRO, since the line between copyrightable and non-copyrightable content will get fuzzier.”  [Disclosure: Arnold & Porter, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case. Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the respondent in this case.]

Briefly:

  • At Vox (via How Appealing), Ian Millhiser weighs in on the government’s request that the Supreme Court allow four scheduled executions of federal prisoners to proceed, arguing that “[s]hould the Supreme Court side with the Trump administration, it will be a sign that the Court’s current majority is very eager to move executions forward — even when death row inmates raise strong legal claims.”

watcha gotta say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.