Breaking News

Round-Up: Yesterday’s Opinions

Today, NPR’s Nina Totenberg had this piece on Morning Edition discussing yesterday’s 5-4 rulings and the “deeply divided” High Court. Totenberg also has this story on the three cases related to the First Amendment that were decided yesterday; Professor Richard Garnett and Professor Walter Dellinger discuss the three decisions here at the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; Washington Post Supreme Court Reporter Robert Barnes led this online discussion of the trio of big 5-4 decisions; Jack Balkin has these thoughts at Balkinization; and this editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal also discusses the three First Amendment decisions. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports here (subscription req’d) that “the Supreme Court handed conservatives victories in a raft of 5-4 rulings”; Joan Biskupic of the USA Today reports here on yesterday’s split decisions by “that undercut precedents set by more liberal courts.” The USA Today also features this op-ed on the Court’s political speech decision and this op-ed on the student speech ruling.

In today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports here on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus ruling, which “showed the court deeply split over what weight to give to free speech in public schools.” At Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh has this analysis of the decision and Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, these thoughts on Justice Stevens’ dissent, and this post on the holding of Morse v. Frederick; Orin Kerr weighs in here. Claudia Mansfield Sutton of the American Association of School Administrations has this op-ed in the USA Today stating “we are heartened that this important case strengthens the decision-making ability of school administrators in the presence of sound school district policy.” At PrawfsBlawg, Jonathan Simon weighs in on the Morse case here; Emil Steiner has this post at the’s OFF/beat blog; and at the Washington Wire blog, Jess Bravin has these thoughts on the similarities between Joseph Frederick and Solicitor General Paul Clement. Education Week reports here (subscription req’d).

In the Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports here on the Court’s campaign finance decision, “possibly ushering in a new era of high court disapproval of measures aimed at reining in campaign excesses.” Greenhouse and David D. Kirkpatrick have this article in the New York Times discussing the WRTL decision, “a sharp turn away from campaign finance regulation.” In the USA Today, Richard Wolf and David Jackson report here on the ruling that “will allow labor, business and other groups to air “issue ads” that mention candidates by name, a practice banned by a 2002 law”; Barnes has this story in the Washington Post on yesterday’s 5-4 decision “providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections”. The Post also runs this editorial stating that “yesterday’s ruling reopens a dangerous loophole.”

Paul Caron has this post at the TaxProf Blog commenting on and collecting coverage of the Hein decision; Greenhouse reports here in today’s New York Times on the ruling “that taxpayers could not sue to block federal expenditures that they allege violate the constitutional separation of church and state.” At Mirror of Justice, Thomas Berg has this commentary and Rick Garnett weighs in here. Simon Dodd has this post at Stubborn Facts and this post discussing both Hein and WRTL.

Dodd also weighs in here on the Court’s opinion in Wilkie.

NPR’s John Nielsen had this story on the Court’s Defenders of Wildlife decision, which reduces the poser of the Endangered Species Act.