Friday round-up
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:20 am
Briefly:
- In commentary at Forbes, JV DeLong observes that, although the Court’s October Term 2014 “is loaded with issues of administrative law,” “it is striking how little the formal arguments” in those cases “have to do with the realities of the contemporary administrative state.”
- In The Weekly Standard, Adam White discusses the Chief Justice’s year-end report on the federal judiciary, focusing on “a subtle reference, on page 2, to Robert Frost: ‘But not even things gray can stay,’ an echo of Frost’s ‘Nothing Gold Can Stay.’”
- In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports on one of the petitions that the Justices will consider at their private Conference today – involving a “decades-long legal battle over water in California” and the delta smelt, “a small fish with a short life.”
- In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews next week’s oral argument in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, in which the Court will consider “the role of a governmental motive or purpose in weighing whether a sign code is content-neutral.”
- In The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses Supreme Court oral arguments and the absence of cameras from those arguments.
- At its Text and History Blog, the Constitutional Accountability Center previews two January cases in which it filed amicus briefs: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, which it describes as “a case with major implications for Medicaid providers and thus ultimately patients”; and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court will consider whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
- In The Atlantic, Ryan Park discusses “what Ruth Bader Ginsburg taught [him] about being a stay-at-home dad.”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in State Water Contractors v. Jewell, one of the delta smelt cases. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
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.
