Tuesday round-up
on Oct 8, 2013 at 7:43 am
The Justices returned to the courtroom yesterday, hearing oral arguments in two cases. In Madigan v. Levin, they considered whether state and local government employees may avoid the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s comprehensive remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims directly under the Constitution. Lyle covered the oral argument for this blog, while Ruthann Robson discusses it at Constitutional Law Prof Blog. Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports on the oral argument in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, in which the Court considered whether victims of the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme can sue the firms that assisted Stanford’s bank under state law, or whether their lawsuits are instead barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. At JURIST, Jaclyn Belczyk summarizes both of yesterday’s arguments.
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in two more cases: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which it will consider the constitutionality of aggregate limits on campaign contributions, and Burt v. Titlow, in which it will consider when a defendant’s rights are violated by bad advice from his attorney. Lyle previewed McCutcheon for this blog, and I added a preview in Plain English. Other coverage of, and commentary on, the case comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, who describes McCutcheon as “a case that could undercut most of the remaining rules that limit big money in politics,” Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog, who lists “three things to watch for” at the oral argument, and Jessica A. Levinson at Pacific Standard. Rory Little previewed Titlow for this blog.
Other coverage of the Court previewed the Term more broadly. In her report on the upcoming Term, Nina Totenberg of NPR notes “that the court has accepted for review so many cases that offer the opportunity for reversing precedent,” while Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal concludes that the Term “offers the justices the chance to refine—and potentially overrule—precedents affecting some of the nation’s most contentious issues: affirmative action, public prayer, civil rights and abortion rights.” At Talking Points Memo, Jeremy Leaming describes the Term as one that “might fairly be dubbed a stealth term”; in The Daily Beast, Ilya Shapiro contends that, although “the docket doesn’t yet rival the previous two terms in capturing the public’s attention—Obamacare and same-sex marriage are hard acts to follow—there are more than enough significant cases to headline many news cycles.” At Greenwire, Jeremy P. Jacobs looks at the upcoming Term’s environmental cases. Finally, in a podcast at Lawyer2Lawyer, David Savage and I discuss the upcoming Term with hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams.
Yesterday the Court also issued additional orders – primarily denials – from its September 30 Conference. At Education Week, Mark Walsh covers some of the education-related petitions that were denied yesterday, while at Crime and Consequences Kent Scheidegger does the same for some of the capital cases from last week’s Conference. Looking ahead to cases that are not yet on the Court’s merits docket, Ilya Shapiro of Cato at Liberty discusses the amicus brief that Cato filed in MHC Financing LP v. City of San Rafael, in which the owner of a luxury mobile home park has asked the Court to review the constitutionality of the city’s rent-control ordinance.
The Justices themselves also provide fodder for coverage and commentary. At Slate, Adam Winkler argues that Elena Kagan is “the most influential liberal Justice,” while at Think Progress Ian Milhiser cites Justice Scalia’s interview with Jennifer Senior for New York Magazine (which I included in yesterday’s round-up) as evidence that the Justice is “further to the right than he’s ever been.” And five Justices – the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kagan, and Breyer – attended the annual Red Mass in Washington. Tony Mauro reports on the service – at which the bishop criticized “petty partisanship – for the Blog of Legal Times.
[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondents in Troice.]
