October Oral Arguments: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports the Supreme Court has released a new calendar for oral arguments in October. The new calendar can be found here. The revised sitting schedule has the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in Oregon v. Ice on October 14th at 1 p.m. The old calendar scheduled Ice for the following day. The case involves whether a judge's decision to implement consecutive sentences for separate crimes violated the defendant's right to a jury trial. CJLF wrote a brief in support of Oregon.

Courts Cannot Hear Challenges to Conditions of Detainee Confinement or Challenges to Transfers: Lyle Denniston also has a post on today's decision from Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan. Judge Hogan has been responsible for overseeing some 200 Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. In today's decision he found that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 removed federal court authority to hear challenges to the“transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of any captive found by the government to be an “enemy combatant.” He reasoned that because Boumediene v. Bush did not nullify that provision of the statute, federal courts “have no jurisdiction” over a detainee’s challenge to a transfer, or the conditions of his confinement. According to Judge Hogan, Boumediene only gave detainees the right to challenge their detention through federal habeas petitions.

Data in Law Review Articles: Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy posted today on the Tulane Law Review controversy. We mentioned the controversy in our Blog Scan last Thursday. Volokh's post supports a law review practice that would include the raw data supporting an article's assertions in an Appendix. He states "That way, law reviews would be reminded of their responsibility to check the data, and readers will find it more consistently accessible." We agree. This type of practice would give researches easy access to data, and put pressure on law review editors to check the data. Both are incredibly important to policy makers and scholars who rely on the data in formatting opinions.