Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

After yesterday’s Conference, the Court announced that it will release orders on new cases on Monday morning; there will be no opinions issued in argued cases during the week.  Additional coverage of Tuesday’s Conference comes from Lyle at this blog and from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences.  The blog’s list of “Petitions to watch” for yesterday’s Conference is available here.

The Court’s recent cert. grants in the health care cases continue to generate commentary and controversy.  At the Washington Post blog Innovations, Dominic Basulto argues that the Court’s decision to review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act “could have a chilling effect on healthcare innovation.”  Meanwhile, Jennifer Haberkorn at Politico reports that Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has asked the Obama administration to provide “documents and internal correspondence” relating to Justice Kagan’s involvement in the defense of the Affordable Care Act.  In an op-ed at Politico, Tevi Troy reviews calls for Justices Thomas and Kagan to recuse themselves from the health care litigation and concludes that Justice Kagan “would be better served if she were to seek the views of outside counsel and take their recommendation on this important issue.” 

Finally, at this blog Steven Kaufhold previews Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds and Ronald Mann previews Hall v. United States – both of which will be argued next Tuesday.


  • At ACSblog, Nicole Flatow reports on Justice Ginsburg’s appearance at a conference commemorating the Court’s decision in Reed v. Reed, including her explanation of why she is an originalist.
  • At the Daily Writ, Kedar Bhatia analyzes Justice Sotomayor’s two first two Terms on the Court and concludes that she “is just as liberal as expected, and she seems to have settled into her role rather comfortably.”  Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy discusses an upcoming article by Yale Law professors and students titled “A Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of theUnited States.” 
  • In an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor Arjun Sethi discusses United States v. Jones and argues that “[a] GPS tracking device should only be employed after probable cause is established and a warrant secured.”
  • The Associated Press (via the Arizona Capitol Times) and Josh Gerstein of Politico’s Under the Radar blog cover an brief filed by Arizona in Arizona v. United States in which the state urges the Court to “head off a series of ‘extraordinary confrontations’ between the federal government and state governments over immigration.”

Recommended Citation: Conor McEvily, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 23, 2011, 8:53 AM),