Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the petition for certiorari filed on Wednesday by defenders of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. Cormac covered the petition, which comes directly from the federal district court, in yesterday’s round-up. JURIST also has additional coverage of the petition.  At Buzzfeed, Chris Geidner outlines several reasons why the petitioners might want to bypass the Ninth Circuit, noting that in this case, “people supporting maintaining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman won,” whereas in all ten of the other pending petitions, same-sex marriage supporters prevailed. Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter explains why he thinks the Court will deny the Nevada petition, including because “the fact that the Nevada case presents the ‘fundamental issue’ of whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry actually cuts against immediate review,” as the Court “usually likes to move in a more minimalist fashion, reserving the largest issues for resolution after more development in the lower courts.”

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg Businessweek, Greg Stohr reports on the generic drug reverse payment cases, providing background and a summary of the arguments on both sides.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the respondents in two of the cases.]
  • For this blog, Lyle reports that, despite efforts by Michigan officials to fast-track the Court’s consideration of the recent Sixth Circuit opinion striking down that state’s ban on affirmative action, challengers of the ban have received an extension of time to file their brief opposing review, making it “a near certainty that the case could not be decided in the current Term.” At Verdict, Vikram Amar summarizes the case and discusses the likely outcome if the Court were to grant cert.
  • Writing for this blog, Kevin Russell reports on Tuesday’s argument in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in which the Court is considering whether water originating in a navigable portion of a river that reaches lower portions of that same river by flowing through a portion of the river that has been engineered for flood and stormwater control qualifies as a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the Clean Water Act.
  • JURIST and the New York Daily News have further coverage of Wednesday’s oral argument in Chafin v. Chafin, in which the Court is considering whether an appeal of a district court’s custody ruling in a case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child returns to her country of “habitual residence.”
  • At this blog, Amanda Frost has an academic highlight focusing on the symposium tribute to Justice Stevens, which appeared in a recent issue of the Northwestern Law Review.
  • In advance of the Court’s consideration later this Term of Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Gerard Magliocca discusses the constitutional standard of review that should apply in a post at Concurring Opinions.
  • At Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen highlights the certiorari petition and opposition filed in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, involving a consent decree that the two parties entered into in 1982; Hasen suggests that there is a “pretty good chance” that the Court will review the case, “given the interesting Remedies issues involved.”
  • Amy Howe of this blog discusses the same-sex marriage cases with Ireland’s Near FM.

 

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Rachel Sachs, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 7, 2012, 8:49 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/friday-round-up-154/