Breaking News

Monday round-up

The weekend’s coverage continued to focus on last week’s oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, the federal challenge to Arizona immigration law S.B. 1070. David Crary of the Associated Press reports on the prospect that if the law is upheld, similar measures will follow in a number of other states. At Bloomberg View, John Eastman analyzes the oral arguments, while the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer urges the Court to strike down the law on the ground that if it “is allowed to stand, it will open the door to other states . . . to create a patchwork of confusing and sometimes conflicting immigration laws.”  At Bloomberg Businessweek, Jennifer Oldham reports on employers’ fears that a ruling in Arizona’s favor might prompt Hispanics to flee, regardless of whether they are in the country illegally. At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin discusses the case and opines that the left abhors the Court’s conservative Justices because “they stand between the left and a political system in which ‘constitutional’ means ‘my way.’” Finally, Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog examines recent critiques of Justice Scalia’s commentary and questions at oral arguments.


  • The ABA Journal’s Leslie Gordon discusses the Court’s decision to stay the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling upholding a state ban on independent corporate spending in the context of the ongoing controversy over Citizens United
  • In his column for Forbes, Michael Bobelian discusses why this Term’s decisions are “are likely to heavily influence a presidential election” and “inspire a plethora of other weighty questions.”
  • At the Blog of the Legal Times, Tony Mauro has coverage of Thursday’s reception at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute, “the annual company picnic of the Court community.”
  • The editorial board of the Boston Herald expresses its disappointment that the Court refused to grant cert. in Harmon v. Kimmel, a case challenging New York’s rent stabilization law.
  • At Forbes, Peter Reilly examines the consequences of the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Home Concrete & Supply.
  • UPI’s Michael Kirkland previews one of next Term’s cases, Fisher v. University of Texas, observing that this “challenge to affirmative action . . . promises to be a real gunfight at the O.K. Corral.” At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler discusses Texas’s decision to retain Latham & Watkins in the case.


Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 30, 2012, 4:43 PM),