Yesterday’s coverage of the Court included Mark Sherman’s interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Associated Press.  Ginsburg addressed (among other things) the Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down as unconstitutional the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which had previously been the basis for Texas’s obligation to get preapproval for any changes to election laws or procedures there, and she observed that “one really could have predicted” that states which had previously been covered by the preapproval requirement might now put tougher voter identification laws into effect.  Rick Hasen discusses Ginsburg’s remarks at his Election Law Blog.

As Lyle reported yesterday, in the wake of the Court’s decision in Shelby County, the federal government has asked a special three-judge district court in Texas to “bail in” that state – that is, to require it to comply with the preapproval requirement going forward.  At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses the significance of this development, which he characterizes as “a big deal on a few fronts. It means that DOJ is going to move aggressively to try to restore what it can of the preclearance regime,” and he suggests that “[i] f the three-judge court goes along, the issue could well end up back before the Supreme Court, perhaps even this coming term, to possibly kill what remains of preclearance.”


  • Greg Stohr of Bloomberg travels to Greece, New York, to preview next Term’s Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of a legislative prayer practice.
  • Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports on the possible impact of the Chief Justice’s selections for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  • As Lyle reported on Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered a family court in that state to finalize the adoption of “Baby Veronica,” the child at the heart of the custody dispute in last Term’s Adoptive Couple v. Baby GirlNPR’s Nina Totenberg has coverage.
  • Several groups that advocate for greater transparency in government have asked the Justices to make their financial disclosure forms available online immediately after they are filed.  Tony Mauro covers the request for the Blog of Legal Times.
  • Writing for Corporate Counsel, Mauro reports on a recent report issued by the law firm Mayer Brown that analyzes the Court’s business docket during the October Term 2012.  The report reveals that last Term businesses won sixty-four percent of their cases against individuals or government agencies – lower than the eighty-six-percent success rate in OT2011 but higher than win rates in OT2010 and OT2009.
  • In a two-part series (here and here) for Ogletree Deakins, Vicki Nielsen analyzes the implications of last Term’s decision in United States v. Windsor, in which the Court held that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, for fringe benefits, taxation of employer-provided health coverage, wage overstatements, and tax refunds.

[Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of the respondents in Shelby County; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of Edith Windsor in Windsor.]

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 26, 2013, 3:17 PM),