As the Court enters the final two weeks before its summer recess, coverage continues to focus on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

At CNN, Bill Mears has an overview of the issues in the case, while at the Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on a study that analyzes how frequently each Justice asked questions challenging or defending the law.  Other coverage centers on anticipation of, and possible reactions to, the Court’s impending ruling:  Politico’s Tim Mak reports that the “anxious conservative activists [who] gathered at the annual RightOnline bloggers conference this weekend expressed fear” that the Court – with the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy – will uphold the ACA, while Linda Feldmann of the Christian Science Monitorand David Espo of the Associated Press report on plans by both political parties in advance of the ruling.   In the Washington Times, Paige Winfield Cunningham looks at the effect that a decision invalidating the individual mandate might have on the rest of the law, while Robert Pear of the New York Times reports on the ruling’s potential implications for Medicaid.

Commentators also continue to weigh in on the case and its possible consequences.   At the Room for Debate page of The New York Times, contributors discuss the future of the ACA and health care if the individual mandate is invalidated, while in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), former health insurance CEO Ron Williams explains why he no longer supports the individual mandate.  Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends that President Obama “committed a colossal error of judgment in making health-care ‘reform’ a centerpiece of his first term,” while at Politico, Tom Daschle argues that health insurance “isn’t like broccoli.” 

Finally, in a speech on Friday at the American Constitution Society convention, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg alluded to the prospect of “sharp disagreement” at the Court in the coming weeks.  CNN’s Bill Mears has coverage, as do Politico’s Kyle Cheney and the Associated Press.

Campaign finance issues also continue to make news.  At the Blog of the Legal Times, Todd Ruger reports on a recent speech by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who criticized efforts to nullify the Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  But at Mother Jones, Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffrey take the opposite view, outlining what they describe as four options “to put elections back in the hands of voters.” 

On June 19, Justice Antonin Scalia’s new book with legal writing guru Bryan Garner will be released.  At the National Law Journal and the Blog of the Legal Times, Tony Mauro provides an overview of the book, which he describes as “an extended plea for judges to hew to the text of statutes and the Constitution in making their decisions.”  And at the New York Times, Adam Liptak reads the book for hints on the fate of the Affordable Care Act.


  • In his column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman criticizes the Court’s tendency to issue opinions in multiple high-profile cases during the last few days of the Term. 
  • In an op-ed for the Washington Times, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt argues that the Court’s poor popularity ratings are undeserved.
  • Jacques Billeaud of the Associated Press reports that if the Court in Arizona v. United States were to reject the federal government’s challenge to S.B. 1070, the decision will likely prompt lawsuits from both opponents and supporters of the law.
  • UPI’s Michael Kirkland covers Reichle v. Howards, in which the Court recently held that two Secret Service agents cannot be sued for arresting an individual who approached then-Vice President Dick Cheney and complained about the war in Iraq.
  • In his column for the Washington Post, George Will urges conservatives to “wean themselves . . . from excessive respect for judicial ‘restraint’ and condemnation of ‘activism.’”

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 18, 2012, 9:30 AM),