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.
Recent Updates
- ABA and FWA: Providers Operate in a High-Risk Environment
- Powerful Tool, but Not an Attorney: Massachusetts Court Rejects Work Product Protection for AI-Generated Documents
- SCOTUS: Venue in White-Collar Case Tied to Proscribed Conduct, Not Intended Effects
- Washington Arbitration Agreements Are Failing Employers in Wage and Hour Cases
- New York’s AVOID Act: Strict Deadlines for Third-Party Practice