Thursday round-up

Yesterday’s coverage of the Court again focused largely on last week’s arguments inHollingsworth v. PerryandUnited States v. Windsor, the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In her Opinionatorcolumn for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses the federalism argument against DOMA, concludingthat “striking down DOMA on federalism grounds is a truly bad idea, and the campaign for marriage equality would be worse off for it.”Reason‘s Jacob Sullum takes the opposite view, arguing that regardless of whether DOMA violates equal protection, it should be struck down because “[f]ar from protecting state autonomy, Section 3 of DOMA intrudes on it.” Writing for theHuffington Post, H. Lee Sarokin criticizes Justice Scalia’s question, during thePerry oral argument, regarding when the Constitution first required same-sex marriage, arguing that “[a]ccording to its own history, something becomes unconstitutional when the Supreme Court says that it is.” Justin Snow ofMetro Weeklylooks back at the history of the marriage cases and considers the shifts in public opinion toward supporting marriage equality.

Other coverage considered the argument that finding an equal protection right to same-sex marriage in all fifty states might produce a backlash analogous to Roe v. Wade. The editorial board of TheNew York Timescriticizes comments from last year by Justice Ginsburg onRoe, in which she argued that the 1973 decision “moved too far, too fast,” arguing that her comments “misread the legal and political landscape at the time of the Roe decision . . . [and] could lead the Supreme Court to shy from doing as it should enforcing equal protection by declaring same-sex marriage a constitutionally protected right in every state.” Jeremy Leaming ofACSblogweighs in with further details from Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel’s book on public opinion andRoe,Before Roe v. Wade.

Other commentators discussed upcoming cases. In his Verdict column for Justia, Michael Dorf outlines the issues raised bySchuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a challenge to an amendment to the Michigan constitution that prohibits (among other things) affirmative action in public universities. And in a follow-up post atDorf on Law, he discusses the connection between race-based civil rights cases and the [same-sex marriage] cases.

Brian Lawson ofThe Huntsville Timesreports on the state of Alabama’s cert. petition seeking review of an Eleventh Circuit decision enjoining a part of the state’s immigration law that criminalizes harboring and transporting unauthorized immigrants, or inducing illegal immigration. (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.)

Briefly:

• Danica Coto ofThe Associated Pressreports on Justice Sotomayor’s visit to Puerto Rico to discuss her recent memoir.