Monday round-up
The Court will issue orders and at least one opinion this morning. This weekend saw the following commentary on the Court:
- At the Insightful Immigration Blog, David Isaacson suggests that the Court’s opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting mistakenly implies that immigrants who have been ordered removed from the country are therefore necessarily not authorized to work in the United States. He contends that “[t]he fact that even the Chief Justice of the United States could make this mistake may shed some light on why the prospect of state officials attempting to implement immigration law strikes many attorneys who work in the immigration field as highly inadvisable.â€
- In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on the creation of the Plessy& Ferguson Foundation, a civil rights education organization founded by two descendants of the parties to the case in which the Court upheld the system of “separate but equal†segregation.
- At his Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh discusses Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. a patent case in which he serves as counsel to the petitioners.
- Michael Kirkland of UPI reviews some of the high-profile cases that are still to be decided this Term.
- At this blog, Lyle Denniston analyzes Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd. Lyle writes that Justice Kennedy’s approach could mean that “even if a Cabinet officer has been found explicitly to have violated someone’s constitutional or statutory rights in one, or perhaps even a few, federal court rulings, that may not be enough to lead to a finding of wrongdoing.â€
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY