Breaking News

Friday round-up


  • Kevin Russell previewed next Wednesday’s oral argument in Maracich v. Spears for this blog.  In Maracich, the Court will consider whether the litigation exception to the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act applies to lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information to find clients. 
  • At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text & History Blog, Rochelle Bobroff looks ahead to next Tuesday’s oral argument in Delia v. E.M.A., in which the Court will consider whether the anti-lien provision of the Medicaid Act preempts a North Carolina state law.  Bobroff focuses on the amicus briefs filed in the case by Texas and the Constitutional Accountability Center.
  • For this blog, Orin Kerr interviews Tracey Maclin, the author of a new book about the Court and its exclusionary rule jurisprudence.
  • Writing at Reason’s Hit & Run Blog, Damon Root considers the libertarian qualities of the Court’s gay rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas and its gun rights decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that both cases “represent a major victory for the libertarian approach, with individual liberty triumphing over intrusive government in both cases.”
  • The Hill and Ariane de Vogue of ABC News both report on congressional perspectives on the upcoming same-sex marriage cases, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
  • In the Texas Weekly, Julian Aguilar reports on Texas’s involvement in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  At Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses Texas’s amicus brief on the merits, which was filed on Wednesday.
  • At Walsh’s Law, Kevin Walsh discusses the amicus brief filed by the National Association of Manufacturers in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, slated for argument next week, and posts a defense by the authors of that brief.  In Knowles, the Court will consider whether a class action plaintiff may defeat a defendant’s attempts to remove to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act by stipulating on behalf of the entire class to seek damages only under the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction.

Recommended Citation: Rachel Sachs, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 4, 2013, 9:08 AM),