Yesterday the Court issued opinions in argued cases.  Lyle Denniston has our coverage of the decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, in which the Court “allowed the use of ‘representative evidence,’ not specific as to each individual involved, to be put forth to show that the group could have had the same legal claim, without having to prove it individually.”  Other coverage comes from Tony Mauro for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Daniel Fisher of Forbes, and Adam Liptak of The New York Times.  Mauro also covers the four-to-four affirmance in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore for Supreme Court Brief (subscription or registration required), explaining that the one-sentence per curiam opinion “translates into a win for the Missouri bank in a dispute with two women over repayment of a $2 million loan made to a development company owned by their husbands.” Coverage of yesterday’s decision in the hovercraft hunter case Sturgeon v. Frost comes from Robin Bravender for Greenwire, Craig Medred of The Guardian, and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.  And coverage of the decision in Nebraska v. Parker comes from Lyle Denniston for this blog and Mark Walsh for Education Week.

Today the Court will hear oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the accommodation offered to religious non-profit groups that do not wish to provide access to birth control for their female employees and students.  Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from law students Maame Esi Austin and Krsna Avila for Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.

Commentary on the case comes from Steven Mazie of The Economist, Gregory Lipper at Bill of Health Blog (with another post here), Justin Sadowsky, who focuses on the amicus briefs in the case at Dubitante, and Ian Milllhiser at Think Progress.

Coverage of Monday’s oral argument in Wittman v. Personhuballah, the challenge to a Virginia congressional district, comes from Mark Sherman of the Associated Press and Adam Liptak of The New York Times, with commentary from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate and Asher Steinberg at The Narrowest Grounds.

Coverage of Monday’s per curiam decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, overturning the conviction of a Massachusetts woman for carrying a stun gun to protect against her abusive ex-partner, comes from Robert Barnes of The Washington Post and Mark Joseph Stern of Slate.  In the San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports on the Court’s grant of review in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, while at Reason Jacob Sullum discusses the Court’s denial of review in a case brought by a U.S. serviceman who was detained at an internal immigration checkpoint in Texas.

Coverage and commentary relating to the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia come from Carl Hulse for The New York Times, Justin Moore in The American Prospect, and Ilya Shapiro in Washington Examiner.

Briefly:

  • At Forbes, Daniel Fisher urges the Court to grant review in the antitrust case FTC v. Wane and and “give the antitrust agencies the economic reset that they appear to require.”

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.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Zubik and is also among the counsel to the petitioners in Samsung. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 23, 2016, 5:55 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/wednesday-round-up-313/