SF Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken began her argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan the traditional way: "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court." Evidently it didn't, because she was immediately grilled by the Justices one might expect to lean her way for arguing a position different and narrower than the one they thought they had taken the case to decide.
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act have anything to do with the use of force by police to subdue a mentally ill and potentially dangerous person? It shouldn't. There is plenty of law governing use of force by police from other sources, and ADA is supposed to be about employment and public accommodations.
Lyle Denniston reports on the argument at SCOTUSblog. I would not be surprised if the Court drops the case. Technically, that's Dismissed as Improvidently Granted, or a DIG in SCOTUS practitioner parlance.
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act have anything to do with the use of force by police to subdue a mentally ill and potentially dangerous person? It shouldn't. There is plenty of law governing use of force by police from other sources, and ADA is supposed to be about employment and public accommodations.
Lyle Denniston reports on the argument at SCOTUSblog. I would not be surprised if the Court drops the case. Technically, that's Dismissed as Improvidently Granted, or a DIG in SCOTUS practitioner parlance.

Leave a comment