Monday round-up

Thursdays ruling on the Affordable Care Act in which the Court rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate but held that the Acts Medicaid expansion provisions violated the Constitution continued to dominate the news this weekend.

Much of the weekends coverage focused on the role of Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decisions controlling opinion. Yesterday afternoon, Jan Crawford ofCBS News reported that the Chief Justice initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law. Crawfords sources? Two people with specific knowledge of the deliberations, she explained.

In other news relating to the Chief Justice, theWashington Posthas coverage of his remarks at the D.C. Circuits judicial conference (which he made before Crawfords story broke), as does theChristian Science Monitor.

A number of commentators including Jeffrey Rosen at theNew Republic, Vikram and Akhil Amar in theLos Angeles Times, Charles Lane of theWashington Post, Kenneth Jost of Jost on Justice, and Robert Reich in theChristian Science Monitor have praised the Chief Justice for his role in the health care decision, suggesting that he placed the legitimacy of the Court and the cohesion of the country above his own views. Relatedly, both Adam Liptak of TheNew York Timesand Robert Barnes of theWashington Post note this Terms lack of predictable ideological splits, which both suggest may be attributable to the Chief Justices leadership. In contrast, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal (bothhereandhere) argues that the Chief Justices opinion validating the constitutional arguments against purchase mandates and 5-4 ruling endorsing them as taxes is far more dangerous, and far more political, even than it first appeared last week.

As Joshua reported in Fridays round-up, several analysts and commentators have emphasized that, even as they lost on the individual mandate, conservatives arguably won the bigger war with the rulings rejection of the federal governments argument that the mandate was justified under the Commerce Clause. James Stewart of theNew York Times, David Savage of theLos Angeles Times, Randy Barnett at theWashington Post, and John Yoo at theWall Street Journalall touch on this issue, while other coverage including Bloombergs Bob Drummond has focused on the legal implications of the Courts ruling on the Medicaid expansion provision for future efforts by Congress to influence the states through federal funds. Greenwirediscusses the consequences for the Clean Air Act, while Jon Ward of theHuffington Post discusses the definition of a tax versus a penalty.

On Thursday, the Court also issued its opinion inUnited States v. Alvarez, holding thatthe Stolen Valor Act which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States violates the First Amendment. Commentary on this decision continues, with the editorial boards of theWashington Postand theLos Angeles Timespraising the decision. In his column forBloomberg View, Noah Feldman considers why the Court found protection for lies and concludesthat falsehoods in debate promote the truth through their collision with error. TheAssociated Presscovers the reactions of military veterans to the decision.

In an order list released on Friday, the Court denied review of the Third Circuits decision throwing out the $550,000 fine that the FCC imposed on CBS for Janet Jacksons infamous wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowl. Coverage comes fromthis blogs Lyle Denniston, Bloomberg,the Associated Press,Reuters,and theHuffington Post.

Finally, asthis blogs Lyle Denniston reported on Friday, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have filed a cert. petition asking the Court to review a First Circuit decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Briefly:

• Kevin Sack and Eric Lichtblau of theNew York Times chronicle the unlikely success of the Republican attorneys general who filed the original challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
• In his column forBloomberg View, Stephen Carter contends that themost fascinating aspect of the Courts decision was the fact that, until the ruling was handed down, nobody outside the court knew what the outcome was going to be.
• TheNew York TimesandBloombergreport on reactions to the health care ruling by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
• At theWashington Post, Michael Serota argues thatthe average Americans inability to understand the Justices opinions detracts from the Courts transparency and accountability.
• At theAtlantic, Andrew Cohen urges his readers to consider the Courts powerand the importance of just one more voteat the polls this fall.
• The editorial board of theNew York Timesapplauds the Courts decision in Arizona v. United States and urges states to stop concocting criminal dragnets for civil violators.