Breaking News

Monday round-up

As the Court begins a two-week break from oral arguments, commentary continues apace on some of the cases argued during the October sitting.  At ACSblog, Nicole Flatow characterizes CompuCredit v. Greenwood – in which the Court will decide whether claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act are subject to arbitration – as a “new test of corporate accountability.”    Rory Little analyzed the oral argument in Greene v. Fisher, a habeas case involving a question of timing for federal habeas petitioners, for this blog; at Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger responds to Little’s post.  American Medical News discussed Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, in which the Court is considering whether Medicaid recipients and providers can challenge a state’s cuts to its reimbursement rates.  Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, in which the Court is considering whether the Fourth Amendment allows jails to strip-search all arrestees, even those arrested for minor offenses, prompted the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times to urge the Court to adopt constitutional limits on strip searches.  [Disclosure: The author of this post assisted with research for the merits brief on behalf of the respondents in CompuCredit.  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to the blog in various capacities, served as co-counsel to the petitioners in Greene and Florence, but the author of this post was not involved in those cases.]

Other coverage of the Court looks ahead to some of the upcoming arguments.  TIME discusses one of last week’s grants, Blueford v. Arkansas, in which the Court will consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a state from retrying a defendant for capital murder after the jury has deadlocked on a lesser charge but announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater charge.  The Hill discusses some of the amicus briefs filed recently in support of respondent Antoine Jones in United States v. Jones, in which the Court will consider the scope of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless GPS tracking; groups filing briefs range from the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations to gun-rights and trucking groups.  At VERDICT, Vikram Amar analyzes the issues in M.B.Z. v. Clinton, which he describes as a case “that raises thorny questions about the relationship between Congress and the President with respect to American foreign policy in the Middle East, and about the power of federal courts to weigh in on such matters in the first place.”  Finally, Michael Kirkland at UPI previews Perry v. New Hampshire, scheduled for argument in early November; he characterizes the case as one in which “the whole idea of eyewitness evidence is under attack.”  [Disclosure: The author of this post assisted with research for the merits brief on behalf of the petitioner in Perry.]

Many of the Justices were also in the news this weekend.  The Washington Post reports on Justice Kagan’s comments at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in Tampa, while reports on Justice Ginsburg’s speech to a group of female judges from around the world; the Chicago Tribune has coverage of a speech by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in Chicago, in which she discussed her efforts to improve civics education.  At the Huffington Post, Mike Sacks reviews some of Justice Thomas’s most recent questions at oral argument; at The Root, Michael Steele urges African Americans to “at least take the time to learn about his life story . . . to appreciate the political, social and judicial philosophies that transformed Clarence Thomas into Justice Thomas.”


  • The Blog of the Legal Times reports that a district judge has rejected requests under the Freedom of Information Act seeking additional documents pertaining to Justice Kagan’s involvement (as the Solicitor General of the United States) with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
  • In the New York Times, Adam Liptak characterizes Fisher v. University of Texas – an affirmative action case that was recently the subject of a SCOTUSBlog Community discussion and an informative post by Stephen Wermiel – as “a fresh opportunity to consider what we mean when we talk about diversity,” but also as a case  that “could also mean the end of affirmative action at public universities.”
  • In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes discusses a recent drop in the Supreme Court’s public approval rating.

Recommended Citation: Joshua Matz, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 17, 2011, 10:01 AM),