Round-Up: Today’s Opinions
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District (05-908) & Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (05-915)
At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has these initial reactions to today’s opinion in her ongoing conversation with Walter Dellinger and Stuart Taylor weighs in here; Tony Mauro of the Legal Times reports here on the school ruling on a “historic final day of the Supreme Court term”; and Washington Post Staff Writer Robert Barnes reports here that a “splintered Supreme Court today threw out school desegregation plans from Seattle and Louisville, but without a majority holding that race can never be considered.”
Mark H. Anderson has this article (subscription req’d) in the Wall Street Journal on the Court’s decision striking down voluntary integration policies in two school districts and Jess Bravin answers questions on the school assignment decision here at the WSJ.com Washington Wire blog; David G. Savage and Joel Havemann have this article in the LA Times on the ruling declaring “unconstitutional the use of racial guidelines to integrate public schools”; CNN’s Bill Mears reports here on the “bitterly divided” Court’s opinion; Mark Sherman of the Associated Press has this story on the ruling that “left the door open for using race in limited circumstances”; and Peter Schmidt reports here for the Chronicle of Higher Education.
James Vicini reports here for Reuters on the “significant civil rights decision that may affect millions of students nationwide”; Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr has this story on the Court’s ruling that “public school districts can’t try to foster integration by considering race in making pupil assignments”; David Stout reports here for the New York Times; Jessica Blanchard, Christine Frey and Charles Pope have this story in the Seattle Post Intelligencer; USA Today’s Joan Biskupic reports here on the “sweeping decision likely to affect school integration efforts nationwide”; and Mark Walsh has this article (registration req’d) at Education Week on the decision, which “stopped short of prohibiting all consideration of race in K-12 education.”
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s SCIntegration Blog has various posts discussing the decision and collecting news coverage and comment, including these thoughts from Professor Samuel Bagnestos; this reaction from Professor Jim Ryan; these comments from Louisville parent Fran Ellers and this post from Nicole Dixon on the immediate aftermath, among others. At Balkinization, Jack Balkin has this reaction to the PICS decision and Kennedy’s concurrence; Mark Graber weighs in here on the ruling and the “good” civil rights movement. Andrew Cohen has this post discussing Kennedy’s concurrence at the WashingtonPost.com’s Bench Conference blog.
Leegin Creative Leather Products v . PSKS (06-480)
Mauro has this article in the Legal Times reporting that “Dr. Miles is dead”; at Bloomberg, Stohr reports here on the High Court’s decision “overturning a 96-year-old antitrust precedent”; the Associated Press has this article on the 5-4 decision; and the Wall Street Journal’s Anderson reports here on the ruling, which “made it easier for manufacturers to demand that retailers sell goods at minimum prices.” Stuart Benjamin weighs in here at Volokh Conspiracy on the antitrust case; at the University of Chicago Law Blog, Randy Picker has this reaction; Peter Lattman of the WSJ.com Law Blog has this post on the opinion; and ACS Blog has this post on the decision that overturns a longstanding precedent.
Panetti v. Quarterman (06-6407)
In the Washington Post, Charles Lane reports here on the “ruling that makes it easier for mentally ill condemned prisoners to contest their death sentences”; LA Times Staff Writer Henry Weinstein has this article on the 5-4 ruling blocking the execution of a mentally ill Texas murderer; the AP’s Pete Yost has this story; Todd J. Gillman reports here for the Dallas Morning News; in the Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert has this story on today’s decision which overturned a lower court ruling; and Max Baker reports here for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram. Orin Kerr has this initial post and these thoughts on the Court’s new habeas exception at Volokh Conspiracy; Kent Scheidegger of Crime & Consequences weighs in here.