Monday round-up

By on Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09 am

Coverage and commentary once again focus on the Term as a whole.  NPR’s Nina Totenberg interviews Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who discusses the efforts by the Court’s four more liberal Justices to “speak with one voice in one opinion.”  At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost posits that, although this Term may have been one of the worst in recent memory for the Court’s more conservative Justices, “they appeared to be the moving force . . . in a bit of aggressive agenda-setting for the coming term.”  And the University of Pennsylvania’s RegBlog looks back at the Term from a regulatory perspective, in a series of essays. Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Event announcement

By on Jul 13, 2015 at 9:50 am

On July 15 at 1 p.m., the State & Local Legal Center will host a webinar on the employment cases this past Term. Shay Dvoretzky, who argued EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, will discuss the impact of this Term’s employment cases on state and local government employers.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Event announcement

By on Jul 13, 2015 at 8:00 am

This afternoon the University of California, Irvine School of Law is hosting a Term review. Panelists Erwin Chemerinsky, Linda Greenhouse, Song Richardson, Kannon Shanmugam, and Judge Jeffrey Sutton will join moderator Rick Hasen.

A live webcast will be available here beginning at 3:00.

 
Share:

Event announcement

By on Jul 10, 2015 at 5:58 pm

On Thursday at 6 p.m., the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia will host “Justice for All?: An Examination of Women’s Issues Before the Roberts Court” at the offices of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Kimberly Atkins will moderate the discussion, with panelists Kelsi Brown Corkran, Walter Dellinger, Fatima Goss Graves, and Erin Murphy. To register, visit the WBA’s website.

Posted in Everything Else
 
Share:

Friday round-up

By on Jul 10, 2015 at 9:02 am

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg BNA (subscription required), David Faigman contends that the Court’s recent decision in Glossip v. Gross, upholding Oklahoma’s use of midazolam in its lethal injection protocol, demonstrates that the Justices have “little understanding of science and make no effort to connect relevant scientific premises to their constitutional decisions.”
  • At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses a recent redistricting decision by the Florida Supreme Court and the effect of the Court’s decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission on that decision.

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.

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Thursday round-up

By on Jul 9, 2015 at 10:31 am

Coverage of and commentary on the Court continue to focus on the just-ended Term as a whole.  In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports on a study suggesting that the Term as a whole was a “mixed” one for business, while in her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse contends that, “[a]s a mirage in the morning light, the ‘liberal Roberts court’ narrative is now fading.”  Steven Mazie makes a similar observation at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog; he argues that, if “come next spring, affirmative-action admissions policies are found to contravene the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee, or mandatory union dues are struck down as a violation of free speech, it will be the liberals’ turn to decry the court’s judicial activism while conservatives nod solemnly and announce that the Constitution has been vindicated.”  And the Room for Debate feature of The New York Times looks more broadly at whether the Court has become too powerful.      Continue reading »

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Asked by the Alabama Supreme Court for advice on what to do next on same-sex marriage, two conservative advocacy groups in the state have urged both direct and indirect resistance to the Supreme Court’s ruling mandating a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to wed.  The state court, the groups argued, has the constitutional power to refuse even to accept what the Justices have done, and has a constitutional duty to insulate state officials from legal risk if they do not obey the decision based on a religious objection.

The thirty-three-page brief was filed on Monday by the Alabama Policy Institution, a think tank, and by the Alabama Citizens Action Program, an inter-denominational church support group, which earlier had persuaded the state’s highest court to block all of the state’s sixty-eight probate judges from issuing any marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even though all of them were under an order to do so by a federal judge in Mobile.  Depending on what the state court now does, it could set up a new federal-state collision that potentially could go to the Supreme Court.  Lower federal courts could take direct action against state trial court judges, but only the Supreme Court could review a decision by the Alabama Supreme Court on a federal constitutional issue.

Continue reading »

In 1962, University of Virginia Law School professor A.E. Dick Howard clerked for Justice Hugo Black, and he has been a close observer of the Court ever since.  In a recent article, The Changing Face of the Supreme Court, Professor Howard describes how the Supreme Court has evolved over the last fifty-three years, providing the long view on an institution that is both timeless and ever changing.

Continue reading »

 
Share:

Wednesday round-up

By on Jul 8, 2015 at 8:56 am

Briefly:

  • Writing for Greenwire, Jeremy Jacobs reports that the “Obama administration is coming off its most successful term at the Supreme Court in several years with one notable exception: environmental and property rights cases.”
  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that the en banc D.C. Circuit unanimously “rejected a new constitutional challenge to the seventy-five-year-old ban on political contributions by” federal contractors.
  • In dueling op-eds for The Washington Times, Steve Vladeck and John Yoo debate the role of the Court and separation of powers.

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.

Posted in Round-up
 
Share:

Event announcement

By on Jul 7, 2015 at 11:20 am

On Thursday at 2 p.m., the Constitution Project will host its Term recap at the Rayburn House Office Building. Steve Vladeck will lead the discussion. For more information, and to RSVP, visit the Constitution Project’s website.

 
Share:
More Posts: More Recent PostsOlder Posts
Term Snapshot
Awards