Yesterday’s coverage of the Court largely focused on the two new cases in which the Court granted review after yesterday’s Conference.  In the first case, Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court will consider whether the federal government can be challenged in a regular federal court for taking over part of an annual raisin crop from packers and processers, under a federal marketing program that seeks to stabilize prices.  In the second case, Sebelius v. Cloer, the Court will consider whether a claimant whose petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is dismissed as untimely may recover attorney’s fees and costs from the United States.  The full order list from yesterday’s Conference is available here, and Lyle provides detailed coverage on the two new cert. grants for this blog.  Other coverage of the grant in Horne comes from David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers, and the Associated Press.

Briefly:

  • Lyle Denniston of this blog previews next week’s oral argument in Vance v. Ball State University, in which the Court will consider who is a workplace supervisor under federal anti-discrimination law.
  • At the Brennan Center for Justice, Sidney S. Rosdeitcher and James J. Beha II preview next week’s oral arguments in Henderson v. United States, in which the Court will consider “whether a criminal defendant may take advantage on appeal of a favorable Supreme Court decision occurring after his trial on a point of sentencing law that he failed to raise at trial,” and Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, in which the Court will consider whether a case becomes moot when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff’s claims.
  • At Politico, Edward-Isaac Dovere, Emily Schultheis, and Juana Summers report on the same-sex marriage cases, which the Court is expected to consider at its Conference next week.
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston discusses what may be the next affirmative action issue at the Court: “whether a state’s voters can simply abolish affirmative-action policies altogether.”
  • At Slate, Eric Posner and Nicholas Stephanopoulos argue that many of the concerns expressed in the wake of the Court’s announcement that it will consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder are “overstated”; “[a] judgment that Section 5 is unconstitutional would have ambiguous, and probably minor, effects on minority representation and electoral outcomes.”
  • At the Boston Globe, Maggie Mulvihill discusses efforts by Massachusetts to comply with last Term’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, in which the Court prohibited sentencing schemes requiring life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.
  • The 92nd Street Y has a video clip of a conversation between Jeffrey Toobin and Alan Dershowitz discussing the “radical argument to have [the] healthcare law overturned.”
  • Harvard Law School reports that retired Justice David Souter, along with Reena Raggi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Mark Wolf of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, presided over the final round of Harvard’s Ames Moot Court Competition. (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.)
  • The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that Esquire has included Chief Justice Roberts in its December “Americans of the Year” issue.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Conor McEvily, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 21, 2012, 12:50 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/wedneday-round-up/