Recent coverage of and commentary on the Court continue to focus on last Term’s landmark cases.

In the wake of the Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, in which the Court invalidated a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, the legal battle over same-sex marriage has shifted to the states and lower courts. Richard Wolf reports on these developments for USA Today. At Cato at Liberty, Walter Olson discusses the ramifications of Windsor, suggesting that same-sex marriage proponents “[c]alm down a little, because we are now going to go back to a situation where most people are still not married in the eyes of their own state.”  And at the IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog, Katharine Baker observes that, although the defenders of DOMA cited the need for nationwide uniformity as a reason to uphold the law, these arguments are now being used by same-sex marriage proponents.  She counters that right now, when most states still disapprove of same-sex marriage, “there are worse things than a lack of uniformity. If Massachusetts and Vermont and Iowa had not thought that they, as states, had the power to define marriage on their own, in contravention of all other states, we would never have been able to make a convincing argument for overturning DOMA.”

Last week, Joan Biskupic of Reuters reported that Justice Ginsburg had no plans to retire. At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen cites Justice Ginsburg’s “exemplary” dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, as proof that she is still more than up for the job.

And at The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse speculates that Justice Ginsburg dissented in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court ordered the Fifth Circuit to take a new look at the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process, because she did not want to lend credibility to the Court’s eventual rejection of affirmative action by acquiescing in a temporary compromise.


  • At this blog, Lyle Denniston summarizes National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, in non-legal terms. Beginning on Monday, the blog will host an online symposium on the case.
  • Also at this blog, Lyle reports on a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit upholding the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which requires larger employers to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a penalty.
  • Also at this blog, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli commemorate the retirement of William K. Suter, the Clerk of the Court. More tributes will be posted today.
  • At Main Justice, Rebecca Cohen reports that on July 17 the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on possible responses to the Court’s decision in Shelby County.
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Lyrissa Lidsky argues that – at least from the perspective of media lawyers – the Court’s recent cert. grant in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, in which the Court will consider whether immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act may be denied without a determination that the air carrier’s disclosure was materially false, was a “missed opportunity.”


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] so that we can consider it.

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 and were among the counsel to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner et al., who filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Shelby County v. Holder. The firm’s Tejinder Singh was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor. The firm is among the counsel to the respondent in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Sam Barr, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 12, 2013, 11:15 AM),