on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:45 am
Tony Mauro of theÂ BLT and Ashby Jones of theÂ WSJ Law Blog both previewed Mondayâ€™s oral argument inÂ Morrison v. National Australia Bank. In theÂ London Times (viaÂ How Appealing), Christine Selb and Alex Spence note that the British government, worried that a decision in favor of the plaintiffs â€œcould encourage British shareholders to bring securities actions in the U.S.,â€ filed an amicus brief in which it warned the Court â€œagainst expanding American law globally.â€Â TheÂ APâ€™s Mark Sherman has coverage of the dayâ€™s proceedings and writes that â€œnone of the justices appeared to accept the investorsâ€™ argument.â€Â Â SCOTUSblogâ€™s Lyle Deniston reports that the Court, led by Justice Ginsburg in â€œa hearing that seemed tailored for its international audience,â€ seemed ready to let the Second Circuitâ€™s ruling stand.Â Tony Mauro for theÂ New York Law Journal and James Vicini ofÂ Reuters also report on the story.
AtÂ USA Today, Joan Biskupic covers the Termâ€™s high-profile free speech cases and writes that though such cases â€œhave not historically divided the Court along ideological or political lines,â€ â€œsome early signs suggest that could change this term.â€Â Specifically, she explains, several cases now before the Court have come from the political right â€œas conservatives react to Democrats in power,â€ and she previews upcoming oral arguments inÂ Christian Legal Society v. Martinez andÂ Doe v. Reed.
As speculation continues that Justice Stevens will retire at the Termâ€™s conclusion, Chris Rovzar of theÂ New York Magazine discusses a recentÂ Vanity Fair poll, in which fifty-five percent of Americans indicated that they would support an openly gay Supreme Court justice.Â Rovzar asserts that President Obamaâ€™s recent progressive victory in passing health care may make him â€œfeel more free to pick a more controversial nominee.â€
- Bob Egelko at theÂ San Francisco Chronicle and Shaun Bishop at theÂ San Jose Mercury-News report on the Courtâ€™s decision to deny cert. inÂ Cate v. Ali.
- Jordan Weissman at theÂ National Law Journal previews the â€œlittle-noticedâ€ case ofÂ Robertson v. United States ex. rel. Watson, which will be argued on Wednesday.Â Weissman notes that a decision in the petitionerâ€™s favor “could make it much harder for battered women and men to enforce restraining orders against their abusers.”
- As Thomas Frisbie of theÂ Chicago Sun-Times reports, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told that paperâ€™s editorial board that he has not been approached about filling a possible vacancy at the Supreme Court.
- Jaclyn Belczyk of theÂ Jurist recaps yesterdayâ€™s oral arguments inÂ Morrison andÂ Renico v. Lett.
- AtÂ Townhall.com, Phyllis Schafly urges President Obama to appoint a military veteran to replace Justice Stevens should he choose to retire, writing that â€œ[c]ases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience.â€
- Lyle Denniston ofÂ SCOTUSblog notes that members of the Supreme Court of Canada, including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, were in attendance during yesterday’s oral argument as part of a continuing exchange program between the two high courts.
- At theÂ Business Insider Law Review, Erin Geiger Smith covers the application of theÂ Citizens decision to two cases in the lower courts, both which were also covered by Lyle Deniston in two SCOTUSblog posts last week (here andÂ here).