This morning the Court will issue orders from its June 7 Conference and at least one opinion. As has so often been the case, coverage over the weekend focused on the Court’s decision – expected this month – in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In the Washington Examiner, Susan Ferrechio reviews some of the possible political implications of the Court’s ruling, while Pam Belluck of the New York Times reports on the views of some health policy experts, who suggest that “the practical effect of the court’s decision will probably be less earth-shattering than some people think.” And Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press reports that the Court’s decision may have “messy potential ripple effects,” explaining that – because the ACA is so complex – “an orderly unwinding would prove difficult if it were overturned entirely or in part.” Finally, in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, Robert Reich makes the highly unusual argument that the Court’s current unpopularity may actually increase the chances that it will uphold the law, in an attempt to demonstrate that the Justices are not influenced by their personal politics.
- At Reuters, Alison Frankel argues that the Defense of Marriage Act is “constitutionally doomed” – not because of equal protection issues, but because of federalism concerns.
- At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick presents Muppet Theory, the philosophy “that holds that every living human can be classified according to one simple metric: Every one of us is either a Chaos Muppet or an Order Muppet.” According to Lithwick, Muppet Theory explains what she characterizes as the “blossoming dysfunctionality” of the current Court: the Order Muppets are running the show.
- The Associated Press’s Jacques Billeaud reports that the Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States will not put an end to disputes over the law, but is instead “likely to ignite renewed assaults by the law’s opponents.”
- At Appellate Daily, Michelle Olsen discusses Paul Clement’s approach to time management and preparing for oral arguments.
- The Charlotte Observer reports that on Friday, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a portrait unveiling for D.C. Circuit Judge David Sentelle in Charlotte, North Carolina.
- Lyle Denniston of this blog provides an analysis of the consequences of the Court’s 2008 decision in Munaf v. Green, concluding that “[f]or lower courts, Munaf has become a major precedent for enhancing executive power, curtailing the power of the courts, and limiting the scope of the habeas writ.”
- In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, retired New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau argues that it “would be more constructive for the Court to decide cases by majority vote and issue a single opinion in the name of the Court without publishing the votes or opinions of individual justices.”
- The National Journal’s Margot Sanger-Katz examines the process by which the Court Court drafts its opinions.
- At the Huffington Post, Natasha Kuilak Mellersh discusses the Court’s denial of cert. in Slough v. United States, which she characterizes as “a small victory in holding private firms accountable for their actions in war zones.”
- The Wall Street Journal Law Blog’s Sam Favate discusses Justice Anthony Kennedy’s role as the swing vote on the Court.