Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

Today the Court will hear the final oral argument scheduled for this Term.  In Arizona v. United States, the Court will consider whether four key provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, are preempted by federal law.   Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog; other coverage comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg, Nina Totenberg of NPR, David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ariane de Vogue of ABC News, Josh Gerstein of Politico, Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post, Jess Bravin and Danny Yadron of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press.  The editorial board of the Washington Post urges the Court to hold that the law is preempted, arguing that “immigration policy would be even more dysfunctional if states were given the green light to craft and enforce their own [immigration] laws” – a sentiment echoed by the editorial board of the New York Times and Kristian Ramos at the Huffington Post.  In an op-ed at CNN, Tamar Jacoby contends that if the Court upholds the law, both the Obama Administration and it should “open the door as widely as possible” to the states in the hope that “their experimentation . . . may point the way for Congress.”  At PrawfsBlawg, Jack Chin collects commentary from other law professors on S.B. 1070.  And Senator Charles Schumer of New York has indicated that if the Court does uphold the law, he will draft legislation “to undo it”; Todd Ruger has coverage for the Blog of the Legal Times.

Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases.  In Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak and Salazar v. Patchak, the Court is considering whether the federal government has sovereign immunity from a suit regarding tribally owned lands to which the government holds title. Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST has coverage of the argument, while Joe Palazzolo of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog notes that Patricia Millett, who argued on behalf of the tribe yesterday, was appearing in her thirty-first case at the Court – “the most by any woman in history.”  The transcript of yesterday’s argument is available here.

The Court also issued one opinion yesterday.  In Wood v. Milyard, the Court unanimously held that courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority – but not the obligation – to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases.  Scott Dodson analyzes the opinion for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jaclyn Belczyk at JURIST, Douglas A. Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy, Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, and the Associated Press.  Kali provides additional details on yesterday’s opinion here.

Finally, at this blog Ronald Mann reports on Monday’s oral argument in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank.


  • At this blog, John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases; Amanda Frost provides an “Academic highlight.”
  • At the Philadelphia Inquirer, Anna Harvey discusses the challenges to the Affordable Care Act in the context of recent research showing that “all other things being equal, as House majorities become more conservative, the [C]ourt becomes more likely to strike down statutes enacted by Democratic Congresses.”
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman responds to a recent essay by Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
  • Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate argue that, when ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, “the Supreme Court should ignore public opinion.”
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger reports that the Court has approved and forwarded to Congress amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • Erica Goldberg at Concurring Opinions discusses Virginia v. Banks, a Fourth Amendment case on Friday’s Conference.

Recommended Citation: Conor McEvily, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 25, 2012, 9:24 AM),