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
- Can Silence Stop the Clock? How Secrecy May Allow Plaintiffs to Toll the Sherman Act’s Four-Year Statute of Limitations
- Discovery Pitfalls in the Age of AI
- Is the Deal Done? Litigation After Mergers and Acquisitions – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- Eleventh Circuit Clarifies: Discovery Materials Can Be Used to Meet Rule 9(b)
- Biometric Backlash: The Rising Wave of Litigation Under BIPA and Beyond