Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

Tomorrow’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin dominated this weekend’s coverage of the Court.  This morning Lyle Denniston previewed the arguments for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak of The New York Times, who interviewed Fisher, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Ralph K.M. Haurwitz of the Austin Statesman, Michael Kirkland of UPI, Justin Pope of the Associated Press, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press (via the Washington Post), Richard Wolf and Mary Beth Marklein of USA Today, Justin C. Worland of the Harvard Crimson, and Mike Tolson of the Houston Chronicle.  And in anticipation of tomorrow’s oral argument, Richard Wolf and Mary Beth Marklein of USA Today also collect quotations on race and affirmative action from the eight Justices who will participate in Fisher.

Commentary on Fisher comes from Paul Barrett at Bloomberg Businessweek, Martha Minow and Robert Post at The Washington Post, Gerald Walpin at The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Lincoln Caplan, Thomas J. Espenshade, and the Sunday Dialogue at The New York Times, Richard Sandler and Stuart Taylor Jr. at the Los Angeles Times, the editorial boards of the Richmond Times-Dispatch (via the Chicago Tribune) and The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (via the Chicago Tribune), Ken Jost of Jost on Justice, and Ben Wieder of Stateline.  [Disclosure:  The law firm of 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 university in this case, but the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

On Friday afternoon the Court granted certiorari in eight cases, consolidating two for a total of seven new arguments.  Lyle Denniston covered the grants for this blog.  Coverage of the Court’s grant in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., a case involving the patent exhaustion doctrine, came from Greg Stohr and Victoria Slind-Flor of Bloomberg, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News, Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes of Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune), and Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

 Daniel Carawan of the Examiner, the Associated Press, and Marti Johnson of WAMU cover the grant in McBurney v. Young, in which the Court will consider whether the Constitution allows a state to preclude residents of other states from having the same access to state records as its own residents.

The Associated Press (via The Washington Post) and Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy report on the grant in the regulatory takings case Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, while Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News covers the grant in Gunn v. Minton, a case involving the proper forum in which to sue patent attorneys for legal malpractice.

The Court also granted cert. in Alleyne v. United States, a case involving the role of judges and juries in mandatory minimum sentencing. Lyle Denniston covered the grant for this blog, with other coverage coming from Douglas A. Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy and John Elwood at the Volokh Conspiracy.  And Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy and Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters cover City of Arlington v. FCC, a Chevron deference case.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the petitioners in City of Arlington.]

Today, the Court will hear arguments in two related cases on the effect that claims of incompetency by state death row inmates may have on their federal habeas cases.  Lyle Denniston previews the cases – Ryan v. Gonzales and Tibbals v. Carter – for this blog.


  • The Oyez Project (via this blog) has posted the audio and transcripts from the first week of the October sitting.
  • In a legal scholarship highlight for this blog, Ira Robbins discusses his article on what he characterizes as the Court’s “misuse of per curiam opinions.”
  • At Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Steven D. Schwinn discusses last week’s arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States.
  • Juliet Lapidos of the Taking Note blog of The New York Times and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press report on recent comments by Justice Scalia, who indicated that cases involving the death penalty, abortion, and certain forms of sexual conduct are constitutionally “easy.”
  • At Education Week, Mark Walsh reports on a symposium at the University of Missouri-Kansas City featuring the plaintiffs from several landmark First Amendment cases.
  • Tim Sohn of Ebyline’s The News Hook interviews Amy Howe of this blog about journalism outlets focused entirely on a single topic.
  • Stephanie Gleason of The Wall Street Journal’s Bankruptcy Beat Blog covers the fallout from the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, which requires district court judges to hear some issues formerly heard by bankruptcy judges.
  • Sarah Randag of the ABA Journal covers SCOTUSblog’s tenth anniversary.
  • David Alpern and Kathryn Herzog of For Your Ears Only preview the upcoming Term in a radio segment which includes an interview with Amy Howe of this blog (audio download).
  • The State and Local Legal Center will host a webinar preview of the Term tomorrow at one p.m.
  • At this blog, Lyle Denniston previews tomorrow’s oral argument in Moncrieffe v. Holder, in which the Court will consider the legal standard for deporting a non-citizen who is convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana, in the absence of any evidence he sold the marijuana. [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as counsel for the petitioner in Moncrieffe.]
  • At the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin highlights a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause discussion in last Term’s health care decision as binding precedent rather than dicta.
  • Bruce Smith of the Associated Press (via the Sacramento Bee) reports that the adoptive parents of a Native American girl have filed a petition for certiorari appealing an order sending her back to Oklahoma.

Recommended Citation: Kiran Bhat, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 9, 2012, 9:28 AM),