This weekend’s coverage of the Court includes discussions of the effect that the upcoming presidential election may have on the Court, as well as the increasing likelihood, in the wake of the Second Circuit’s decision last week, that the Court will take up the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his column for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Dick Polman argues that, despite the candidates’ failure to discuss the Court in depth, the future of the Court is at stake in this election. Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic makes a similar point, urging his readers not to cast a “protest vote” against President Obama in light of the consequences that a Romney victory might have for the legal landscape.  And in the same vein, Adam Winkler, writing for the Huffington Post, considers how a Romney presidency might affect the Court, and contends that the Court’s ruling in the health care case “will only make Republicans more determined to insure that the next nominee has a proven track record of support for their favored causes.” 

As this blog reported, last week the Second Circuit struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Rachel summarizes the coverage of the decision in the Friday round-up; additional coverage comes from NPR‘s Nina Totenberg and Todd Ruger at the Blog of the Legal Times, who reports that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has already spent nearly $1.5 million in defense of the law. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times queries whether the Second Circuit’s decision may be “too favorable,” while the editorial board of the New Jersey Star-Ledger urges the Court to invalidate the law on the ground that it treats same-sex partners as second-class citizens.  And at Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost characterizes the law as the “Offense Against Marriage Act” because it denies legally married gay and lesbian couples benefits that are extended to opposite-sex couples living in the same state.


  • In an “academic highlight” for this blog, Amanda Frost discusses a recent symposium dealing with the interaction between the Court and the media.
  • John Christoffersen of the Associated Press (via the Boston Globe) reports that on Friday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at Yale. The discussion with the Justice was moderated by Linda Greenhouse, who teaches at the law school.
  • In The Wall Street Journal, Richard Garnett reviews The Partisan: The Life of William Rehnquist by John A. Jenkins.
  • According to Grant McCool of Reuters, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will sit on two Second Circuit panels next week, hearing arguments in cases ranging from corporate fraud to insurance and organized crime.
  • Matt Volz of the Associated Press (via the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that conservative groups and businesses in Montana have asked the Court to intervene after the Ninth Circuit stayed a decision by a district court holding that the state’s campaign contribution limits are unconstitutionally low.
  • UPI‘s Michael Kirkland reports on last week’s cert. grant in Arizona v. The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the challenge to Arizona’s law requiring voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship;  he suggests that, although the case will not be argued and decided until after election day,  the Court’s decision “will help shape the voting landscape of the future.”

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 22, 2012, 9:32 AM),