Coverage of the Court yesterday looked toward the future, focusing on the long-term implications of this Term’s decisions for the business community and the country more generally.

Erwin Chemerinsky summarizes the key cases from this past Term for the ABA Journal. He argues that the Court was once again “the Anthony M. Kennedy Court,” with the Justice in the majority in ninety-one percent of argued cases, and twenty out of twenty-three five-to-four decisions. And this blog’s Amy Howe discusses the implications of the Court’s rulings in the same-sex marriage and voting rights cases, as well as the future of abortion rights, in the latest episode of David Alpern’s For Your Ears Only.

Looking at the business docket more specifically in an op-ed for The New York Times, Chemerinsky cites Vance v. Ball State University, Mutual Pharmaceutical Company v. Bartlett, and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant as examples of decisions that reveal a conservative majority working to shield businesses from litigation.  And analyzing twelve of the business-related rulings from the Term at his blog, Ed Mannino recommends that corporations facing litigation that could be headed to the Court “steer cases through their agreements with vendors, customers, and others to arbitration.”

Briefly:

  • At this blog, Stephen Wermiel discusses the tradition and practice of Justices reading their dissents from the bench, as part of his “SCOTUS for law students” series.
  • As Lyle Denniston reported for this blog, the Obama administration has delayed implementation of the employer health care mandate until 2015.
  • Deirdra Funcheon of the Broward Palm Beach New Times reports on a recent speech by Chief Justice John Roberts at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference in which he described Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida his “favorite case of the term.”
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Kim Pearson writes about family law issues in response to comments on her series of posts (covered in both Monday’s and Tuesday’s round-ups) with Addie Rolnick on last week’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
  • At Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson discusses the potential for anonymity in Supreme Court opinion authorship in light of last Term’s coverage of the personalities and reputations of individual Justices.
  • Finally, Rory Little summarizes last week’s decision in Sekhar v. United States for the American Bar Association.

 

Disclosures: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among on 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.

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: Dan Stein, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 3, 2013, 9:42 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/wednesday-round-up-190/