Breaking News

Monday round-up

The Court’s November sitting begins this morning at ten o’clock.  Prominent among the docketed cases is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association¸ scheduled for oral argument tomorrow.  In that case, the Court will consider the constitutionality of a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.  Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal has coverage of the case, as do Derrik Lang of the Associated Press (via MSNBC) and Michael Doyle of McClatchy.  The op-ed page of the Washington Post features Daniel Greenberg, a video game developer who describes himself as “disheartened and a little perplexed to see my art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze.”  The First Amendment Center collects coverage of the case.

Other cases scheduled for oral argument this week include Ortiz v. Jordan, in which the Court today will consider whether an order denying summary judgment can be appealed after a full trial on the merits.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports on David Mills, the young appellate lawyer who will argue on behalf of the petitioner, an Ohio woman who was sexually assaulted in a state prison.  And the Arizona Republic reports on Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn, which will be argued Wednesday.  That case involves questions of taxpayer standing and the constitutionality of a tax credit program that most parents use to pay for religious schooling.  (In Education Week, Mark Walsh describes the disappointment of “self-described religious-liberty groups” with the Court’s denial of certiorari in a wide range of cases involving the interplay of religious expression and public schooling.)

In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes kicks off a periodic series on the practical impact of the Court’s decisions by looking at the campaign finance rulings culminating in Citizens United.  He describes these decisions as “providing perhaps the most striking example of how the Roberts Court differs from its predecessor.”  Barnes also reports for the Post on calls for the impeachment of various Justices and suggests that although “[n]one of the complaints is gaining traction,” they may indicate something about the public mood.

Public appearances and advocacy have brought several Justices into the news.  At Slate, Bert Brandenburg discusses criticism of efforts made by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to promote the appointment, rather than election, of state judges, arguing that “[w]e need judges in our public debates, because no one else can tell us what’s going on from the inside of the courts.”  Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke to a Catholic legal organization, the Green Bay Press Gazette reports.   The Justice argued that (in the Press Gazette’s words) “faith and intellectual sophistication aren’t mutually exclusive.”  And the Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a recent interview with Justice Stephen Breyer, in which the Justice discussed his new book.

Finally, in the Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel reports on the impact of last Term’s decision in Graham v. Florida.  Although that decision only reached the constitutionality of life sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes less serious than murder, state courts are now hearing arguments that would extend Graham’s logic to life sentences for juvenile murderers.

And briefly:

  • At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost contrasts the use of cameras in the courts of appeals with their absence from the Supreme Court.

Recommended Citation: James Bickford, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 1, 2010, 9:53 AM),