Friday round-up

With the official start of the October Term 2012 just a few days away, much of yesterdays coverage looked forward to the upcoming cases.Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune),NBC News, andThe Atlanticpreview several of the Terms most anticipated cases, while the Heritage Foundation has also posted thevideoof its Term Preview event from earlier this week, which featured comments by Paul Clement and Tom Goldstein.

Other coverage of the Court focused specifically on cases the Court will hear in its October sitting. Robert Barnes of TheWashington Post, Jess Bravin of TheWall Street Journal(subscription required), David Savage of theLos Angeles Times, and David Cole at theNew York Review of Booksall preview the argument inFisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court will consider whether the universitys use of race in undergraduate admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, also represented the American Association of Law Schools as amicus curiae in this case.]

Writing for theABA(via theCivil Procedure and Federal Courts Blog), Jonathan Hafetz previews Monday’s argument inKiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court will examine the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. AtCNN, Vincent Warrenhas additional commentary onKiobel. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as co-counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.]

For this blog,Lylepreviews the Court’s upcoming argument inLozman v. Riviera Beach, in which the Court will consider the appropriate definition of “vessel” for purposes of triggering federal maritime jurisdiction,while Ronald Mannpreviews the Court’s upcoming argument inUnited States v. Bormes, in which the Court will consider whether the United States is immune from damages actions brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the petitioner in Lozman.]

On Thursday, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments inWindsor v. United States, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.Bloomberg,JURIST, andBuzzfeedhave coverage. The plaintiff had previously filed a petition for certiorari before judgment, but as Cormac noted inyesterday’s round-up the Court has not yet acted on the petition.

Briefly:

• Over atConstitution Daily, Lyle explores the legal issues inone of Tuesdays cert. grants, Missouri v. McNeely, in which the Court will consider whether the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits police officers to obtain nonconsensual, warrantless blood samples from drunk drivers.
• TheCrime and Consequencesblog and theSentencing Law and Policyblog report on the decision by an intermediate state appellate court in Florida holding thatMiller v. Alabama, in which the Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment, does not apply retroactively.
• AtVerdict, Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein review a new California law intended toregulate funeral demonstrations without running afoul of the First Amendment; the law follows the Courts 2011 decision inSnyder v. Phelps, holdingthat the First Amendment protects from tort actions those who are peacefully protesting matters of public concern near military funerals.
• AtPatent Docs, Kevin Noonansummarizes Bayer’samicusbrief in support of certiorari inMerck & Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., in which the Third Circuit held that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company and a generic manufacturer constitutes prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade. [Lyle Denniston covered the filing of the petition for this blog last month. Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the respondents in this case.]
• At Alison Frankels On the Caseblog for Thomson Reuters, Nate Raymond discusses the procedural history behind Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, in which the Court will consider whether a district court may certify a class action without deciding if the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence supporting its theory of damages. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the respondents in this case.]
• Michael Doyle ofMcClatchy Newspapersreports on Tuesdays grant inMillbrook v. United States, in which the Court will consider the scope of immunity of the federal government from lawsuits by prisoners claiming that prison officials were negligent.
• At the Constitutional Accountability Center’sText & History Blog, Rochelle Bobroff looks ahead to Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, scheduled for argument at the end of October, in which the Court will consider whether the plaintiffs have standing “to question the constitutionality of government surveillance of unspecified targets.”