on Aug 19, 2011 at 10:16 am
Yesterday afternoon the Court denied a stay of execution to Virginia inmate Jerry Terrell Jackson (discussed in yesterday morningâ€™s round-up). Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor indicated that they would have voted to grant the stay. Pronounced dead at 9:14 p.m. EST, Jackson was the first Virginia inmate to be executed with a three-drug mixture that includes pentobarbital. The Washington Post, the Associated Press (via NPR), the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and Crime & Consequences all have coverage of the execution.
- In a meeting with reporters at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Justice Kennedy speculated that the Courtâ€™s docket for next Term is changing because â€œ[a] lot of big civil cases are going to arbitration,â€ according to Trial Insider. (Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for the link.)
- At Appellate Daily, Michelle Olsen reports on a split between the D.C. and Ninth Circuits on the scope of the legislative privilege enshrined in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. Olsen writes that â€œ[t]his circuit split on an issue of nationwide importance, namely the integrity and independence of Congress, has Supreme Court watchersâ€™ attention.â€
- In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Lois Davis examines the impact of the Courtâ€™s decision last Term in the California prison overcrowding case, Brown v. Plata. Davis explains that â€œ[t]he chief reason the court ordered a reduction in the prison population was the failure of the state to meet the basic medical needs of prisoners,â€ and then she wonders, â€œCan strapped local governments really do any better?â€
- Mike Dorf at Dorf on Law and Sarah Kliff at Ezra Kleinâ€™s Washington Post blog both speculate about the political implications of potential major rulings at the Court next Term.
- LegalNewsline and Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy take note of a new article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, in which Virginiaâ€™s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, and two other state officials explain their motivation for pursuing a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act.