Wednesday round-up
on Oct 30, 2013 at 9:06 am
In response to a request from the Supreme Court, yesterday the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a 2011 state law regulating medical abortions is sufficiently broad in scope that it would “effectively ban[]” all medical abortions in the state. The state court’s ruling sets up the possibility that the Supreme Court could weigh in on the law this Term. Lyle Denniston reports on the ruling for this blog; Jess Bravin has coverage for The Wall Street Journal.
Also yesterday, in the Lawyers’ Lounge at the Supreme Court, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor officiated at the wedding of Jeff Trammell and Stuart Serkin. Earlier this year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first Justice to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple. Chris Geidner has the story for BuzzFeed.
At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Doug Kendall discusses Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, in which the Court will consider whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. He describes the case as “rais[ing] an important test of . . . whether conservatives hate eminent domain more than they detest civil rights statutes like the FHA, that protect minority homeowners from unjustified disparate impact.” The answer,” he contends, “apparently is the latter.”
The debate over the use of social science and statistics at the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, in which the Court is considering the constitutionality of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action at its public universities, continues with a post at Brookings from Richard Lempert, who argues that, “whatever their decision [Chief] Justice Roberts and his colleagues should not delude themselves into thinking that the white citizens of Michigan were, when they outvoted the state’s minorities to ban affirmative action, intentionally or by happenstance acting to prevent harm to minority students.”
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Schuette. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
