on Nov 4, 2010 at 9:41 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in two cases. The first, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, stole the media spotlight. The case involves a taxpayer claim that a state program that gives parents tax credits for tuition at private schools violates the Establishment Clause because most parents use the credits to pay for religious schooling. Bloombergâ€™s Greg Stohr characterizes the argument as â€œa philosophical clash over the governmentâ€™s taxing power,â€ while the Wall Street Journalâ€™s Jess Bravin suggests that the â€œCourt seemed sharply divided.â€ One argument made by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal â€“ that no one has standing to raise the plaintiffs’ claim â€“ garnered particular attention.Â The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, Slate, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, NPRâ€™s All Things Considered program, Courthouse News Service, SCOTUSblog, ACSblog, the Associated Press, and Education Week (thanks to How Appealingâ€™s Howard Bashman for the link) all have additional coverage of the argument.
The Court also heard argument in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., which presents the question whether federal law preempts a negligence claim for failure to install a lap/shoulder seatbelt. Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center recaps the argument and argues that although the case â€œmay not be a hot news item,â€ â€œit should be.â€ Bloombergâ€™s Angela Keane and Greg Stohr also cover the argument and predict that the case will divide the Court — with Justice Elena Kagan recused, â€œperhaps evenly.â€ The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press also cover the argument.
Transcripts of both arguments are available here.
- At the New York Times Learning Network Blog, Katherine Schulten asks students to respond with their thoughts on Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the violent video games case.