On Thursday at 2 p.m., the Constitution Project will host its Term recap at the Rayburn House Office Building. Steve Vladeck will lead the discussion. For more information, and to RSVP, visit the Constitution Project’s website.
On July 8, the Law and Economics Center at George Mason will host a “wrap-up” of the Court’s energy and environment docket from the October Term 2014.
The event will take place at the National Press Club and will also be available in a live stream. For more information and to register, visit George Mason’s website.
End-of-Term overviews come from Nina Totenberg of NPR, who describes the October Term 2014 as a “historic term, a surprisingly liberal term – and a nasty term.” And C-Span has video of a panel featuring a group of Supreme Court reporters discussing the just-ended Term and making predictions for next year.
Other coverage of and commentary on the Court focus on criticism of the Court by Republican presidential candidates. At Yahoo! News, staff of the National Constitution Center discuss calls by Mike Huckabee for term limits, while Katie Zezima of The Washington Post reports on Ted Cruz’s advocacy for judicial retention elections. Continue reading »
End-of-Term overviews continue to pour in. Adam Liptak discusses the Term in an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, in which he notes that, although political scientists will say that the just-ended Term was a “liberal Term for the ages,” all of that could change next Term. In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro observe that several of the Court’s high-profile decisions “revealed deep divisions among the justices – not just between the left and right sides of the bench, but often within the Court’s conservative wing.” Lawrence Hurley of Reuters looks at the Obama administration’s Term (with a graphic), describing it as one in which the administration “wins big and loses small.” Continue reading »
The Court is in summer recess.
With the Court now in its summer recess, some coverage and commentary focus on overviews of the Term more generally. NPR’s Nina Totenberg and this blog’s Tom Goldstein discuss the Term with Robert Siegel, while at the Los Angeles Times David Savage observes that “perhaps the biggest dynamic driving this term was overreaching by the Court’s conservative justices.” In Education Week, Mark Walsh looks at the Term from an education perspective, noting that even when the Court is not “weighing cases directly involving education, many of its decisions reach into the schools”; another post excerpts rulings in education-related cases, accompanied by sketches by Art Lien. MoloLamken analyzes the Court’s business docket, while at Slate, Marty Lederman discusses some of the Term’s biggest surprises. Continue reading »
The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed somewhat its plan to review the work of the independent Arizona agency that drew new election districts for the state legislature after the latest census. In a new order, the Court said it would not be ruling on a complaint that the agency wrongly created districts to give Hispanic voters more political power.
On Tuesday, the Court accepted an appeal in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, without limiting the questions at issue. Thursday’s order drops off the third question that the challenging voters had raised.
On July 9, the Heritage Foundation will host its annual “Scholars and Scribes” review of the Court’s Term. The event consists of two panels, running from 11 a.m.to 1 p.m. For a list of panelists, a link to live stream, or to RSVP to attend, visit the Heritage Foundation’s website.
Commentary on last week’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition thereof, continues to pour in. At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Ruben Garcia suggests that the dissenting Justices “see the stigma of being viewed as a bigot for being against same-sex marriage as worse than the stigma of being denied marriage,” while in an op-ed for the Boston Globe Kent Greenfield argues that the difference between Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Court and the dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts “is empathy, and lack thereof.” At Slate, Brianne Gorod discusses the importance of the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act for last week’s ruling, while casetext compiles its commentary on the ruling. Continue reading »
Yesterday the Court added five new cases to its docket for next Term. Lyle Denniston covered the order list for this blog. The Court’s announcement that it had granted review in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a challenge to compulsory fees for public-sector unions, garnered the most attention. Lyle Denniston covered the grant for this blog; other coverage comes from Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, while commentary comes from Deborah LaFetra at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog and Moshe Marvit at Talking Points Memo. Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reports on the Court’s grant in a challenge to the legislative boundaries drawn by Arizona’s independent redistricting commission; Rick Hasen also discusses the grant at his Election Law Blog. Continue reading »