Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, both of which involve challenges to the warrantless searches of an arrestee’s cellphone.  Lyle Denniston reported on the argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English.  Other coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Pete Williams of NBC News, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST, while Bill Blum comments on the cases at truthdig.

The Court also issued decisions in three argued cases yesterday.  Most attention focused on the decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, in which the Court upheld – by a vote of six to two – an EPA rule designed to reduce cross-state air pollution.  Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.  Justice Sotomayor had the other two opinions yesterday, both involving the availability of attorney’s fees in patent cases.  Ronald Mann reported on the decisions in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems for this blog, while Jaclyn Belcyzk did the same for JURIST.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Lane v. Franks, involving the First Amendment protections available to a public employee who testifies in court.  Ruthann Robson covered the argument for this blog, while Beverly Mann discusses the argument at Angry Bear.

Today the Court will hear oral arguments in the final case scheduled for this Term, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies.  At issue in the case is whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under Section 271(a).  Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog; other coverage comes from Kyle Alspach at BetaBoston, while Shubha Ghosh weighs in on the case at the National Review Online.

Briefly:

[Disclosure:  Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to petitioner David Riley in Riley v. California at the cert. stage, but he is not participating in the case at the merits stage.  Goldstein & Russell also serves as counsel to the petitioner in Lane.  However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 30, 2014, 8:35 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/wednesday-round-up-228/