Breaking News

Monday round-up

With oral arguments in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act set to begin today, the weekend’s coverage continues its heavy focus on the upcoming case.

General overviews of the case—discussing the parties on each side, the legal questions at issue, and the Act’s political background—come from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, C-SPAN, UPINPRCBS, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox News, and Jost on Justice. Both the New York Times and the WSJ Blog offer day-by-day previews of the three days of oral arguments that lie ahead.

Today’s arguments, which will focus on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from hearing the case before the law’s provisions take effect, are previewed by the Associated Press, the National Law Journal, and the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes. The Washington Post’s editorial board argues that because the Act imposes a penalty, not a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and the Court should proceed to the merits. On Tuesday, the Justices will take up the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and on Wednesday, the Court will turn to the law’s severability—discussed by the Los Angeles Times, the National Law Journal, and Balkinization—as well as its expansion of the Medicaid program.

Additional coverage focused on the oral advocates who will appear before the Court. Profiles of the lawyers in the case and their preparations appear by the New York Times, the National Law Journal, and the Christian Science Monitor. In-depth profiles of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli can be found in the New York Times and at NPRNPR also provides an in-depth profile of Paul Clement; the Volokh Conspiracy comments on this profile as well as other recent coverage of Clement.

The weekend’s coverage also emphasized the line for tickets that formed outside One First Street. As Bloomberg News reports, people began camping out on Friday morning in the hopes of securing a seat. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Post again, the Huffington Post, the WSJ Law Blog, ABC News, and CNN also have coverage.

Commentary on the issues and predictions about which course the Justices might take also continued this weekend. For arguments that the Court should hold the Act constitutional, see Bloomberg News, Bloomberg News again, the Los Angeles Times, and CNN. For commentators who believe that the Act must be struck down, see Politico, the Huffington PostReason, the Volokh Conspiracy, and CNN. Already, commentators at Reuters, Business Week, and the Huffington Post have predicted that the Justices will choose to uphold the law. Possible political consequences of a decision either way are explored by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, CBS News, and MSNBC.

Finally, a number of publications have written articles and guides for the uninitiated. The Washington PostABC NewsCNN, and Forbes explain the basics of the case, and CNN hones in on the four key legal questions. USA Today provides a glossary of terms, and the Washington Post debunks five common myths about the Affordable Care Act. Reuters discusses what is at stake in this case for businesses in different industries.


  • The New York Times’s Room for Debate examines whether the Justices are simply giving due consideration to an important legal question, or are preparing to engage in “judicial activism” to reduce federal power.
  • NPR and Just Enrichment discuss the Justices’ continuing refusal to allow cameras at the Court.
  • ReutersPolitico, and Fox News all have coverage of a Tea Party rally against the law that took place this Saturday.
  • The Associated Press and the Washington Post try to predict how each Justice will behave at oral arguments.
  • USA Today, Business Week, and Fox News report on remarks made by senior White House adviser David Plouffe regarding the case.
  • The Wall Street Journal and Politico trace the path to the Court taken by the law’s challengers; the Volokh Conspiracy considers whether the public finds those challengers sympathetic.
  • In his column for the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson discusses the case in the context of President Obama’s legacy.
  • C-SPAN releases the results of a survey that focuses on the public’s attitude toward the Court, its docket, and the Justices themselves.
  • Writing for the Huffington Post, Dan Froomkin opines that two of the most controversial campaign finance practices in the aftermath of Citizens United are not actually a result of the Court’s ruling in that case.
  • NPR’s Laura Sullivan and Lauren Silverman profile an unlikely group urging the Court to hold unconstitutional sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers—the victims’ families.
  • Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy discusses the importance and impact of the Court’s decisions last week in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper.


Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 26, 2012, 9:11 AM),