The big news yesterday at the Court was the oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Justices are considering the constitutionality of aggregate caps on campaign contributions to individual candidates and political parties.  Lyle covered the oral argument for this blog, and I followed with a recap in Plain English last night.  Other coverage came from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Garrett Epps of The Atlantic, Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.  Commentary on the argument comes from Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog, Steven Schwinn of the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Jeremy Leaming at ACSblog, Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo, Joshua Douglas at The Huffington Post and Reuters, and the Constitutional Accountability Center.

In other coverage of the Court, Lisa Keen of the Keen News Service looks ahead to the LGBT issues that could be on the Court’s docket this Term.  And at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie responds to critics of the endorsement test who wrote for this blog’s symposium on Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the town’s practice of having prayers at the beginning of its town council meetings.  He argues that, “for all the ambiguities it entails, the endorsement test, applied judiciously, is probably the best reading of non-establishment one could hope for. It is certainly better than available alternatives.”

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 9, 2013, 7:37 AM),