on Jun 30, 2011 at 9:53 am
Mondayâ€™s decisions in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Arizona Free Enterprise Clubâ€™s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett continue to draw coverage and criticism.Â Discussing EMA, Seth Schiesel of the New York Times argues that, â€œ[n]ow that the industry has finally gotten what itâ€™s asked for,â€ it should show the world what it can do with its â€œnewfound respectability,â€ while the opinion staff of the Los Angeles Times surveys reactions to the decision.Â And discussing the decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Steven D. Schwinn of Constitutional Law Prof Blog posits that â€œthe only way to make sense of the 5-4 opinionâ€ is that the majority â€œhas found a new right in the First Amendment: the right of well endowed political candidates to speak without a response.â€Â The opinion staff of the Los Angeles Times characterizes the majorityâ€™s opinion and Justice Elena Kaganâ€™s dissent as a â€œprimer on two different approaches to the First Amendmentâ€: the libertarian model and the liberal model.
Several of this monthâ€™s earlier opinions were also the subjects of yesterdayâ€™s commentary.Â Writing for the Opinionator blog of the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse notes that the decision and dissent in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, in which the Court held that age is a relevant factor in determining whether someone is â€œin custodyâ€ for purposes of providing a Miranda warning, is not only an indication of â€œhow polarized the Court has become,â€ but also â€œraises a question about the future of the Miranda decision.â€Â ACSblog links to an analysis of the Courtâ€™s recent decision in in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders; the author of that article, Howard Fischer, suggests that although the Court may have blocked one route for stockholders to challenge corporate fraud, it may have also â€œinadvertently left open a far more dangerous path for the plaintiffâ€™s bar: claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.â€Â And the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times criticizes the Courtâ€™s recent decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, arguing that â€œ[g]enerics should not be known as buy-at-your-own-risk drugs.â€
End-of-term reviews continue to pour in as well.Â Writing for the Atlantic Andrew Cohen focuses on the nine best dissents that â€œgive us glimpses into what [the Justices] really think about a topic or issue,â€ while Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal focuses on Justice Kennedyâ€™s votes in five-four decisions.
- The ACLU has released its annual summary of the Courtâ€™s civil liberties decisions, which is now available on its web site.
- Clive Crook of the Atlantic reports on a recent panel at the Aspen Idea Festival panel (video), which included former Justice Oâ€™Connor and Justice Breyer; along with Stanford Law School dean Larry Kramer, the panel considered the extent to which the Court has mirrored public opinion over the years. Â At the same panel, reports Sarah McBride of Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune), Justice Breyer dismissed questions about the involvement of Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, in the Tea Party as a â€œfalse issue.â€
- In an article for the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh documents the retirement (or lack thereof) of former Justices Stevens, Oâ€™Connor, and Souter.
- In an essay for the New Republic, David Fontana suggests that this Term has proven significant because it marks the Term in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor â€œbecame the most well-known and effective member of the Courtâ€™s liberal wing.â€ (Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for the link.)
- Tom Curry of MSNBC.com discusses the likelihood that challenges to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act will reach the Court during its upcoming Term.
- The Associated Press (via NPR) has a brief report on a â€œpartisan-tingedâ€ Senate Judiciary Committee hearing convened to consider the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions on consumers.Â C-SPAN also provides coverage.