Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, involving a pilot’s defamation suit against the regional airline, which counters that it is immune from suit under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Coverage comes from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, challenges to the EPA’s rules that require states to take measures to prevent their air pollution from affecting their downwind neighbors. Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog; other coverage comes from Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire, who also notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments today in challenges to an EPA rule governing mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.
- At ACSblog, Frederick Mark Gedicks discusses the challenges to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate and urges the Court to “make clear that large, for-profit corporations are not protected by RFRA, because such large entities are not and cannot reasonably be perceived as ‘exercising religion’ when they operate unambiguously secular enterprises for commercial profit.”
- At NPR, Frank James observes that, with yesterday’s order granting a motion by Senator Mitch McConnell for argument time in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the challenge to the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, Miguel Estrada – whose own nomination to the D.C. Circuit was filibustered during the George W. Bush Administration – is likely to argue on behalf of Senate Republicans. James suggests that, “[i]f the Obama administration and Senate Democrats wind up losing in the Supreme Court, the Estrada and nuclear-option back story could make the win for Republicans especially sweet.”
- At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger criticizes a recent article on Hall v. Florida, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of Florida’s scheme for identifying intellectually disabled inmates for purposes of eligibility for the death penalty, as “seriously flawed.”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in Air Wisconsin, but the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 10, 2013, 7:51 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/12/tuesday-round-up-206/