- At this blog, Tom Goldstein discusses the broader issues raised by some of this Term’s major cases, with a focus on the Court’s power to interpret the Constitution to strike down federal laws. He concludes that “[i]f the power of judicial review is a fixture of our law, then we have to be prepared to accept that our principles take us to results we sometimes don’t like.”
- At NPR, Nina Totenberg answers frequently asked questions about the Supreme Court.
- At the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen urges the Court to clarify when campaign contributions amount to bribes subject to criminal prosecution.
- At Alliance for Justice, Franita Tolson discusses Monday’s opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempts an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters. Although the opinion appears to be a victory for federal authority, she observes that “the Court [agreed] with Arizona that the states, and not Congress, have plenary authority over prescribing voting qualifications” and that “this narrow view of congressional authority appears to call into question several significant pieces of federal legislation.”
- Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog interviews Paul M. Smith, the lawyer who successfully argued before the Court in the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court held that a Texas law criminalizing sodomy was unconstitutional, about the likely outcome in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act).
- At Business Insider, Erin Fuchs has the story of Abigail Fisher, the petitioner in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court is considering a challenge to that university’s use of affirmative action in its undergraduate admissions process.
- At The BLT, Tony Mauro reports that Senator Dick Durbin has urged the Court to allow live broadcasts of its opinion announcements in the major cases this Term; Zoe Tillman reports on a panel discussion on women and the federal courts in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated; the Justice told the audience that “the growing number of women judges in courts across the country today, notably her fellow Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, made her ‘tremendously optimistic’ about the future.”
Disclosures: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the American Association of Law Schools as an amicus in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth; Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.
Correction: An earlier version of this round-up incorrectly referred to Tony Mauro, rather than Zoe Tillman, as the author of a report on Justice Ginsburg’s appearance at a panel discussion hosted by the Historical Society of the D.C. 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.
Recommended Citation: Sarah Erickson-Muschko, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 20, 2013, 8:57 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/thursday-round-up-184/