Monday round-up

MATT SUNDQUIST MAR 1, 2010 10:00 AM

The Court will hear argument today in Skilling v. United States, the third honest-services-fraud case this Term.  The Court will consider both whether the honest services statute is unconstitutionally vague and an argument by Skilling – the former president of the Enron Corporation – that his trial should not have been held in Houston, where the Enron collapse had a “devastating impact.”  John R. Emshwiller and Jess Bravin of the WSJ report on the case, as do Lyle Denniston of this blog, and Adam Liptak of the New York Times.  Tony Mauro, writing at the BLT, profiles Sri Srinivasan, the O’Melveny & Myers partner who will argue on Skilling’s behalf at the Court .

Tomorrow the Court will hear arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the challenge to the City of Chicago’s handgun ban.  Harriet Robbins Ost of UPI discusses the arguments in the case, including the ramifications of a decision that relies on either the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause. McClatchy Newspapers.  SCOTUSblog, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, and the San Jose Mercury News all have coverage of the case.

Legislators and commentators continue to consider responses to Citizens United.  Griff Palmer of the New York Times analyzes the Schumer-Hollen legislation.  Comparing the present situation to FDR’s struggle with the Court over the New Deal, Stan Isaacs of the Philadelphia Inquirer uses his column to argue that President Obama should add three new justices to the Court.  ACSblog interviews Professor William Marshall, and posts a link from a panel discussion, moderated by Professor Marshall, which examined the decision.

Briefly:

• Speaking to the Rapid City Journal, attorney James Leach – who argued on behalf of Catherine Ratliff last week in Astrue v. Ratliff – compares arguing a Supreme Court case to the “Super Bowl, World Series and Olympics all put together.”

• David Hudson, analyzing United States v. Stevens at the First Amendment Center blog, writes, “One can hope that the justices won’t carve out another category of expression that’s off-limits.”

• At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has a post entitled “Why United States v. Miller was so badly written.”  Kopel characterizes Miller as the Court’s “leading decision on the Second Amendment” before District of Columbia v. Heller.

• The New York Times reports on the Court’s influence on efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation’s waterways.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY