Breaking News

Monday round-up

Over the weekend, some coverage of the Court looked ahead to cases that may be on the Court’s merits docket in the months ahead, including the Montana campaign finance case American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, which the Justices will consider at their June 14 Conference.  UPI describes the case as one in which the Justices “will decide what to do about Montana’s cheeky slap at Citizens United vs. FEC,” while in an op-ed for the New York Times, Montana governor Brian Schweitzer explains the case from the state’s perspective.

And in light of last week’s decision by the First Circuit invalidating Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which Lyle covered for this blog), the editorial board of the New York Times argues that although “[t]he nation would be well-served if the justices let the panel’s ruling stand,” it would be even “[b]etter yet” if Congress would “just repeal the dreadful law.”  At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost suggests that “[t]he narrowness of the First Circuit’s decision may make it easier for the Supreme Court to come to the same conclusion in an appeal likely to reach the justices in their next term.”


  • Steven Davidoff of the New York Times discusses new questions raised by Morrison v. National Australia Bank, in which the Court held that U.S. securities laws do not apply to investment deals that occur outside the country, even if they have a domestic impact or effect.
  • David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports on one of the cases on last week’s Conference, Siegelman v. United States, in which the former Alabama governor is asking the Court to review his conviction for a violation of federal bribery laws arising from a campaign contribution. 
  • At Forbes, Daniel Fisher opines that the fact that “[m]ore than half of the Supreme Court decisions in the most recent term have been unanimous . . . further undermin[es] the theory that the nation’s highest court is hopelessly split between a conservative majority and an embattled liberal minority.”
  • Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal reports that Justice Thomas will be the keynote speaker at an upcoming Yale Law School alumni dinner at the National Press Club.  (Cormac also covered this news in Thursday’s round-up.)
  • Kenneth Harney of the Los Angeles Times reports on the possible impact of the Court’s recent opinion in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., including the prospect that the decision “could encourage the practice of ‘marking up’ fees by mortgage lenders, escrow officers and others that had been banned by federal regulators for the last decade.”  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the petitioners in Freeman, but the author of this post was not involved in the case.]
  • The Arizona Republic’s Dan Nowicki examines the possible political consequences of the Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the legal challenge to Arizona immigration bill S.B. 1070.
  • Writing for the Paris Review, Josh Friedman previews a new play that centers around an oral argument before the Court.
  • NPR’s Tinbete Erymas considers the possible implications of a divided decision in the health care case.

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 4, 2012, 9:39 AM),