Round-Up

Linda Greenhouse reports here in today’s New York Times on the Court’s decision in Brendlin v. California; in the USA Today, Joan Biskupic has this story on Monday’s unanimous ruling, which “clarified the breadth of the Fourth Amendment”; and Robert Barnes of the Washington Post has this article on the Court’s finding that passengers are “covered by the Fourth Amendment and allowed to challenge unreasonable searches and seizures”. Also in today’s Washington Post, this editorial applauds the High Court’s ruling.

Washington Post Staff Writers Tomoeh Murakami Tse and Charles Lane have this article on the Court’s Credit Suisse ruling, “a blow to investors”; Tony Mauro of the Legal Times reports here that “the Court gave the banks broad implied immunity from antitrust lawsuits”; in the USA Today, Matt Krantz has this story; Greenhouse reports here in the New York Times that “the securities industry dodged a bullet”; and Jess Bravin and Aaron Lucchetti have this story (subscription req’d) on the IPO decision, which “marks another milestone in the Court’s recent movement to free markets from the cost and complications of plaintiff lawsuits.” In addition, the Wall Street Journal has this editorial (subscription req’d) stating that “the High Court has batted down yet another bit of ‘frivolous’ antitrust innovation by the trial bar.”

Here, Paul Caron of the TaxProf Blog collects news and blog coverage of the Court’s decision yesterday to deny cert. in two state tax cases, Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, and MBNA America Bank v. Tax Commissioner, State of West Virginia; the AP’s Christopher S. Rugaber reports here; and Mark H. Anderson has this article (subscription req’d) in the Wall Street Journal.

In yesterday’s New York Times, this op-ed by David Lat discussed the “gargantuan” bonuses awarded to Supreme Court law clerks; Peter Lattman weighs in here at the WSJ.com Law Blog.

At the Supreme Court School Integration blog, commentators are providing background information, analysis, and responses to the forthcoming decision in the Seattle & Louisville school cases, including this post from Chinh Q. Le discussing the 5-4 decision in Bowles and what it says about where the sympathies of the Justices lie.

Jeffrey Toobin has this commentary in the current issue of The New Yorker on recent conservative victories, declaring that “when it comes to the incendiary political issues that end up in the Supreme Court, what matters is not the quality of the arguments but the identity of the justices.”

Lastly, NPR’s Justice Talking features a dialogue on gun laws and the Second Amendment; listen here to the full program or learn more about individual segments here.