Tuesday round-up

Commentary on the Court and the Affordable Care Act continues at the Volokh Conspiracy, where Ilya Somin and Jonathan Rauch debate whether the individual mandate is a penalty or a tax.  In the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn also weighs in on the tax-or-penalty question, concluding that “justifying the mandate as a tax would allow the justices to uphold the law while avoiding messy questions about regulatory power.” And in a guest post at the American Prospect, Eric Patashnik and Jeffery Jenkins argue that “how the Supreme Court rules will be a key factor in the Affordable Care Act’s political fate—but the partisan and ideological struggle over health reform is likely to continue under any scenario.”

Briefly:

• Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog reports on an amicus brief that was filed recently in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the challenge to Montana’s campaign finance law; the brief urges the Justices to revisit Citizens United v. FEC.  (Lyle also covered this filing last week.)
• Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently spoke at Dartmouth College on Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States, and the relationship between the Solicitor General and the Court; The Dartmouth has coverage.
• At The Hill’s Pundits Blog, Ronald Goldfarb recounts an oral argument in front of Justice William O. Douglas.
• And Yi Song of Immigration Daily offers a primer on Arizona v. United States, including a detailed review of the oral argument.