Monday’s decision in Maryland v. King continued to generate commentary.

Writing for this blog, Ronald Collins discusses Justice Scalia’s use of the word “panopticon” in his dissent, while at Slate, Barry Friedman argues that “neither [the majority nor the dissent] got it quite right” because they failed to take full account of the distinction between investigative and regulatory searches. At Newsweek, Walter Olson discusses King in the context of the Court’s other Fourth Amendment decisions this Term, while Kent Scheidegger of Crime & Consequences argues that “[i]t is time to drop the idea that searches for investigation of crime are subject to a different standard than searches to enforce other laws.  A search is a search.” 

Briefly:

  • Mary Dwyer lists this blog’s “Petitions to watch” for next week’s Conference.
  • Also at this blog, Art Lien describes a day in his life as a sketch artist covering the Court.
  • At Radiolab (audio), Tim Howard has the story of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, in which the Court is considering whether a non-custodial parent of a child can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to block an adoption by a non-Indian parent.
  • At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Monday’s summary reversal in Nevada v. Jackson, a habeas case out of the Ninth Circuit.

 If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Matthew Lanahan, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 6, 2013, 8:53 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/thursday-round-up-182/