At the BU Law commencement on May 19, the featured speaker will be one of the most prominent lawyers in the United States, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

Verrilli has served as the Solicitor General of the United States since June 2011. He replaced Justice Elena Kagan at OSG. Previously, he was Deputy Counsel to President Obama and as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his government service, he practiced law at Jenner & Block for over 20 years.

Some of the Verrilli’s work can be viewed at government web sites, in the numerous briefs and oral arguments in which he has represented the U.S. government before the Supreme Court.  He is also the author of many scholarly articles focusing on Supreme Court. C-SPAN provides video clips that highlight the audio recording of Verrilli’s oral arguments before the Court and his frequent participation at panel discussions on legal issues.

Do you know the best place to go to for free access to court rules online?

The U.S. Courts web site provides PDF documents for all the current sets, including rules of civil procedure, criminal procedure and evidence. Also provided is directory of links to local federal court rules (including Circuit, District and Bankruptcy courts). Like many other courts, the U.S. Supreme Court provides its rules on its web site.

For state courts, rules are usually provided by the state judiciary web sites–e.g., Massachusetts. For other states, this directory from the National Center for State Courts can take you to the court web site(s) from each jurisdiction.

Especially when the citation rule, Bluebook 12.9.3, requires only citation to the current rule (and not to any particular published source), the Internet source for court rules can meet a researcher’s need in most situations.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded oral arguments yesterday in the pair of cases on same-sex marriage that garnered much of the attention paid to law and legal issues this week. The transcripts and audio recordings are available for United States v. Windsor (here) and for Perry v. Hollingsworth (here).

Numerous reporters and commentators have weighed in with their observations, analyses and opinions. Some of the most interesting so far are from bloggers who write on law and public policy:

• Post-argument reports from Lyle Denniston (SCOTUSBlog) on Perry and Windsor
• Tom Goldstein (SCOTUSBlog), The relationship between DOMA and Proposition 8
• Dale Carpenter (The Volokh Conspiracy), Not there yet
• Jonathan Rauch (Brookings blog), Gay Marriage Hits the Supreme Court
• E.J. Graff (The American Prospect), Asked and answered

See also the exchange of views on SCOTUSBlog, with essays posted this morning by Gerard Bradley and John Bursch, with more to come.

Since the case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act last Term, no oral arguments before the Supreme Court have been more anticipated than those on the two same-sex marriage cases to be argued this week: United States v. Windsor, re the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); and Hollingsworth v. Perry, re California’s Proposition 8.

The Court’s web site provides visitor information and a guide for those attending their first oral argument. But that can hardly prepare one for the scene at the Court on those days. The lines to attend the oral argument began forming last Thursday night and are made longer by those who are paid to stand in them, holding a place for others. By Tuesday morning, despite bad weather on Sunday and Monday, there likely will be many times more people in line than possibly could attend even a few minutes of oral argument. Thousands more will be there for demonstrations and rallies.

Why the huge interest in these arguments? Last November, before the Court had decided to hear the cases, SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein provided some historical context:

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment.  The plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law.  On the other hand, that describes some moral judgments.  The Constitution does not forbid every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some grave ones) themselves, legislatively.

Surprising some observers, the Court decided to hear both cases. The briefs have been filed. Possible outcomes have been anticipated, assessed and predicted by many observers (for example: here, here, here and here) and diagrammed here. Of course, much speculation focuses on the roles of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.

The arguments will be extensively covered by traditional press and social media.  Although the Court has never allowed television cameras to show the Court’s proceedings, audio recordings will be made available at the Court’s web site within hours of the arguments. But it won’t be necessary to wait that long for initial reports. Among others, The New Yorker‘s Jeffrey Toobin reports that he’ll be live-tweeting from the Court.

Need to find a regulation,  ANPR, proposed rule, final rule, agency adjudication decision or some other acronym unique to Admin law and or feel lost when contemplating the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations?

This might just be the class for you! Come learn how to find regulations, and importantly, research in this important area.

Three sessions are planned next week:

March 26th: Room 334 1-2 pm

March 28th: Room 334 1-2 pm

March 29th: Room 334 2-3 pm

Late on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate confirmed the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. The vote on the confirmation was 58-41. With all Senate Democrats on record supporting the nomination–and Democrats in the majority–the nomination was not in doubt, once it came to an up-or-down vote. The key vote was the one to invoke cloture, or end the filibuster of Hagel’s nomination. There, the vote was 71-27.

A comparison of the roll-call votes in the Senate (numbers 23 and 24 of the 113th session) reveals who made the difference.  Altogether, there were 15 Republicans who split their votes. While ultimately voting to oppose Hagel’s confirmation, these Senators allowed the nomination to go forward: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Blunt (MO), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK),  Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Flake (AZ), Graham (SC), Hatch (UT),  McCain (AZ), Murkowski (AK), Sessions (AL) and Thune (ND). Just four Republican Senators were pro-Hagel in both votes: Cochran (MS), Johanns (NE), Paul (KY) and Shelby (AL).

For ordinary citizens, this kind of analysis used to be difficult because roll-call vote information could be hard to locate. The more obscure the issue, the more difficult it was to find the voting records. The New York Times provided tables to show how members voted, but only on selected, major votes. The Congressional Record was a source for those who could visit a library that had CR in print. Beyond those, interested citizens may have had to consult  Congressional Quarterly (CQ) publications, Roll Call (the Capitol Hill newspaper), or possibly political, business or labor organizations that had a stake in the issue. In some cases, it may have been necessary for a constituent to contact the office of the Congressman or Senator directly.

Now, with Congressional and other government web sites providing House and Senate voting information, anyone with Internet access can learn how members of Congress voted on issues that matter to them–provided they know where to look.

As we move toward Spring, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is issuing an increasing number of decisions; there were nine decisions this week alone. This Term, important cases will be decided over the next four months, including the Monsanto seed patent case, argued earlier this week, and the marriage cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor), to be argued in late March.

A variety of sources are available to keep track of new developments: some through subscription services, and some free to all.

Commercial updates include United States Law Week (among the suite of Bloomberg BNA titles), which provides extensive coverage of the Supreme Court, from news coverage to docket information to publication of full opinions. Users can create alerts on Lexis and Westlaw, to be notified of news or new opinions, whatever your preferences.

Among the free services for tracking new SCOTUS decisions are daily opinion summaries from Justia (just log in and click the box next to the court for which you want daily summaries of new opinions) and the Supreme Court Bulletin (subscribe to receive an email with the syllabus of each new SCOTUS decision) from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII). Then there is SCOTUSblog, which provides exhaustive coverage of all things SCOTUS, including easy access to briefs and other informaton on pending cases in its Merits Cases section. Likewise, the ABA’s Previews pages offer background on each case to be argued before the Court.

Other tools? Consider following the Twitter feeds of journalists who cover the Court, including The New York Times’ Adam Liptak and Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick; or SCOTUSblog; or such other feeds as @SCOTUSOpinions, which posts only links to new opinions.

To survey other sources of SCOTUS information, consult the library’s portal or (more generally) our links to legal news and blogs.

Students, for more tips and strategies for staying current, register for the Keeping Up with the Law certification class next week.

If you are conducting research a treaty to which the United States is (or may be) a party, free Internet resources provide some of the most useful tools available. Some tips on using these free sources follow.

One example of a treaty that was recently considered by the Senate is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“the Convention”). Late in 2012, there was much news coverage of the Senate’s failure to ratify the Convention. To check on recent treaty actions in the Senate, a good first stop is Thomas, the Congressional web site. In Thomas’ Treaties section, a simple search (“disabilties”) in the 112th Congress leads to information about the Convention, identified as Treaty no. 112-7; Senate Executive Report 112-6, which accompanies the treaty; and the Senate vote on December 4, 2012. However, Thomas does not link out to these reference documents or more details.

For the text of the treaty documents, go to the Government Printing Office web site, FDSys, which provides access to Congressional Documents; that includes Senate Treaty Documents for each recent Congress, including the 112th. Treaty Document 112-7 is available in PDF there. Likewise, Executive Report 112-6 is available; to find it, run a search (e.g., “senate executive report 112-6″) on the FDSys main page. The Senate’s web site provides information on roll-call votes, including the December 4 vote on the Convention. (Because the 61-38 vote fell 6 votes short of a two-thirds majority, ratification was rejected.) Continue Reading »

There are more than 600,000 opinions dating back to 2004 are available on FDsys, the Government Printing Office website. This was a pilot program of the Judicial Conference and opinions from the pilot are already one of the most heavily used collections on FDsys, with millions of retrievals each month.  But these are limited to 29 circuits and district courts.  The Judicial Conference has now approved posting on FDsys of all federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts should the courts opt opt to participate in the program.

In speaking on equality in his second inaugural address on Monday, President Obama alluded to the marriage cases pending before the Supreme Court.

There are two separate cases, Windsor (on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA) and Perry (on California’s Proposition 8). Both cases are scheduled for oral argument on March 27.

The Court’s docket provides information on filings and developments in the two cases here and here. On Tuesday, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)  in its defense of DOMA, filed a brief on the merits (read it here). Also on Tuesday, the Petitioners in Perry filed their merits brief in defense of Proposition 8.

In addition to its extensive news and analysis, SCOTUSblog provides access to many of the briefs filed in these cases (here and here) in its Merits Cases section. There is no better place to stay current on news and developments related to these cases and others pending at the Supreme Court.