This week, the Court issued decisions in six cases and heard oral arguments in seven more.  But the overwhelming focus of media coverage was this week's decision in Snyder v. Phelps, and in particular Justice Alito's dissenting opinion in that case.

In an article for the Washington Post, Robert Barnes cites Justice Alito's dissent in Snyder as another example of his willingness to "strike out on his own," especially with regard to First Amendment issues.  And Barnes also suggests that Justice Alito is likely to vote to uphold the constitutionality of a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors in another First Amendment case pending this Term, Schwarzenegger v. EMA. At TIME, Sean Gregory has a lengthy discussion of the opinion in Snyder, including reactions from the petitioner, Albert Snyder. At the Los Angeles Times, David Savage also discusses the decision in Snyder and notes that it "does not appear to affect the laws in 43 states that seek to keep the protesters away from military funerals." At Balkinization, Jack Balkin analyzes the issues of informational privacy implicated by the Court's in Snyder; describing the Chief Justice's opinion as "an important enhancement of the distinction between matters of public and private concern that may lead to important new doctrinal developments in the area of personal privacy in the future."  And the Room for Debate blog of The New York Times features six opinion pieces on the decision, focusing on the question whether "emotions have a place in the First Amendment."  Amanda linked to more news about Snyder here.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico: Richard Friedman provides his impressions of the argument at The Confrontation Blog (hat-tip:  How Appealing).

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd: At Reason, Jacob Sullum acknowledges Adam Liptak's prediction that the Court will side with the government, but he also observes that "resolving claims like al-Kidd's does not require telepathy.  There is strong, objective evidence, including Ashcroft’s own words, that Al-Kidd’s detention as a "material witness' was a ruse designed to conceal a violation of his constitutional rights."

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 4, 2011, 11:40 AM),