Thursday round-up

By Amy Howe
on Aug 14, 2014 at 7:52 am

Briefly:

• In the wake of recent comments by President Obama to Democratic donors about the possibility of additional appointments to the Supreme Court, Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo discusses the prospect that, if all of the Justices remain on the Court through the end of the president’s second term, “the 2016 presidential election could lead to a cataclysmic reshaping of the Supreme Court, and with it the country.”
• At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses Runyon v. United States, a capital case in which the federal government recently filed its brief in opposition after taking eleven extensions.  (I discussed the case in a post last month.)   Re suggests that the case “is notable in part because it involves the interaction of prejudice in two senses—social and legal. In other words, [it] asks whether prejudice in the sense of legal injury resulted from the government’s use of prejudice in the sense of social stereotypes.”
• At Concurring Opinions, Edward Zelinsky weighs in on Comptroller v. Wynne, in which the Court will consider whether the Constitution prohibits Maryland from taxing all the income of its residents — wherever earned — by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states.  Zelinsky argues that, although the Court should reverse the decision by Maryland’s highest court, it “should craft a narrow holding.”
• In the Supreme Court Brief (registration or subscription required), Marcia Coyle reports on Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a First Amendment challenge to a Florida judicial canon that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds.
• At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Timothy Sandefur continues his series of posts on North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, in which the Court will consider in which the Court will consider issues relating to the state action exemption from antitrust law.  Sandefur argues that the case is “important” and that “the Court should rein in the availability of antitrust immunity for state government agencies.”

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.  Until the end of the summer, we will have twice-weekly round-ups (Tuesday and Thursday); daily round-ups will resume in the fall.  Thank you!