Tuesday round-up

JAY WILLIS MAR 30, 2010 9:45 AM

Tony Mauro of the BLT and Ashby Jones of the WSJ Law Blog both previewed Monday’s oral argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. In the London Times (via How Appealing), Christine Selb and Alex Spence note that the British government, worried that a decision in favor of the plaintiffs “could encourage British shareholders to bring securities actions in the U.S.,” filed an amicus brief in which it warned the Court “against expanding American law globally.”  The AP’s Mark Sherman has coverage of the day’s proceedings and writes that “none of the justices appeared to accept the investors’ argument.”  SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Deniston reports that the Court, led by Justice Ginsburg in “a hearing that seemed tailored for its international audience,” seemed ready to let the Second Circuit’s ruling stand.  Tony Mauro for the New York Law Journal and James Vicini of Reuters also report on the story.

At USA Today, Joan Biskupic covers the Term’s high-profile free speech cases and writes that though such cases “have not historically divided the Court along ideological or political lines,” “some early signs suggest that could change this term.”  Specifically, she explains, several cases now before the Court have come from the political right “as conservatives react to Democrats in power,” and she previews upcoming oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and Doe v. Reed.

As speculation continues that Justice Stevens will retire at the Term’s conclusion, Chris Rovzar of the New York Magazine discusses a recent Vanity Fair poll, in which fifty-five percent of Americans indicated that they would support an openly gay Supreme Court justice.  Rovzar asserts that President Obama’s recent progressive victory in passing health care may make him “feel more free to pick a more controversial nominee.”

Briefly:

• Bob Egelko at the San Francisco Chronicle and Shaun Bishop at the San Jose Mercury-News report on the Court’s decision to deny cert. in Cate v. Ali.
• Jordan Weissman at the National Law Journal previews the “little-noticed” case of Robertson v. United States ex. rel. Watson, which will be argued on Wednesday.  Weissman notes that a decision in the petitioner’s favor “could make it much harder for battered women and men to enforce restraining orders against their abusers.”
• As Thomas Frisbie of the Chicago Sun-Times reports, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told that paper’s editorial board that he has not been approached about filling a possible vacancy at the Supreme Court.
• Jaclyn Belczyk of the Jurist recaps yesterday’s oral arguments in Morrison and Renico v. Lett.
• At Townhall.com, Phyllis Schafly urges President Obama to appoint a military veteran to replace Justice Stevens should he choose to retire, writing that “[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.”
• Lyle Denniston of 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 the Business Insider Law Review, Erin Geiger Smith covers the application of the Citizens decision to two cases in the lower courts, both which were also covered by Lyle Deniston in two SCOTUSblog posts last week (here and here).

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY