In brief, here are today's stories on the Supreme Court:
- At Balkinization, Jason Mazzone summarizes his research on Supreme Court review of state court decisions. He concludes that "compared to its predecessors, the Roberts Court is reviewing fewer cases from the state courts but reversing a higher percentage of them. In other words, the Roberts Court is intervening only to correct the most serious errors by the state courts."
- ACSblog highlights an amicus brief filed by former Justice Department lawyers and federal prosecutors in a prosecutorial misconduct case that will be argued in October, Connick v. Thompson. The brief contends that "prosecutors should be responsible for ensuring that constitutional rights are not subverted in the process of securing convictions."
- The Chicago Tribune previews National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson, a case about federal contract employees' constitutional rights to informational privacy. Nelson will also be argued in October.
- Politico's Josh Gerstein reports on United States v. Alvarez, in which the Ninth Circuit recently struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim a military honor. He observes that the case "could be a fascinating test of where [Justice] Kagan stands on free speech issues"”a subject that went largely unexplored at her confirmation hearings."
- At Bench Memos, Matthew Franck critiques Michael Klarman's recent Los Angeles Times op-ed on public opinion, gay marriage, and the Supreme Court. Franck contends that a Supreme Court "ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is likely to play out more like Roe v. Wade than like Brown v. Board of Education."
- USC’s Gould School of Law has announced that it will be hosting a preview of the 2010 Supreme Court Term on Monday, September 20. More information is available here.
- And finally, the editorial board of the Hartford Courant praises the five Republican senators who, in the board's view, "courageously defied their leadership" by voting to confirm Justice Kagan.