Breaking News

Monday Round-up

In the Wall Street Journal, Anne Tergesen discusses both the recent rise in age-discrimination claims and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. (2009), which requires plaintiffs alleging age discrimination to establish that their age was the sole cause of the employer’s actions.  However, last month Congress introduced new legislation that would override the Supreme Court decision by requiring plaintiffs to prove only that age was “one factor behind an employment decision.”

At the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones has a brief profile of Michael Carvin and Noel J. Francisco, who represent the petitioners in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (oral argument scheduled for Dec. 7), the challenge to the constitutionality of part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  BusinessWeek also profiles Carvin and Francisco.

At PrawfsBlawg, Bill Araiza revisits the issues in Citizens United and the prospect that the Court will overrule its earlier decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.  Araiza wonders whether the Court in its decision, will explicitly address the recent controversy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where several members are quitting in protest over the Chamber’s speech on global warming.

In the National Law Journal, Tony Mauro describes the similarities between the recent “Balloon Boy” incident in Colorado and the pending Supreme Court case, Padilla v. Kentucky.  As different as they are, Mauro writes, both are “casting new light” on “when, whether, and how defendants should be informed about the collateral consequences of pleading or being found guilty.”

An op-ed in the L.A. Times by Jeffrey Kayes discusses the possibility that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano may weigh in on the Arizona statute at issue in United States Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, in which the Court has called for the views of the Solicitor General.  The statute – which Napolitano signed into law as Arizona’s governor in 2007 – imposes harsh penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Nathaniel Persily, guest-posting on both Balkanization and Volokh, presents the results of a recent survey, which he (and others) designed to measure opinion on constitutional questions, including interpretive methodology and the appropriateness of empathy in Supreme Court decision-making.

At Concurring Opinions, Michael Zimmer analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Ricci v. DeStefano and then follows up with a separate article regarding the interaction of “disparate treatment and impact discrimination” before and after the Ricci decision.

At Balkinization, Barry Friedman responds to Linda Greenhouse’s article over the weekend in the New York Times’ Opinionator.  In particular, Friedman challenges (what he interprets as) Greenhouse’s hope that Justice Sonia Sotomayor will incorporate her personal experiences more strongly into her jurisprudence.

In its first installment of “Predictions of the 10th Justice,” (and Above the Law) discusses predictions regarding the outcome of Citizens United, which was argued in early September.