Monday round-up

On Friday, the Court granted cert. in four new cases:Bond v. United States,University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar,Metrish v. Lancaster,and the Allen Stanford case, which represents the consolidation of three separate petitions. This weekend’s coverage focuses on these new grants, as well as the swearing-in ceremonies of both President Obama and Vice President Biden and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s newly released memoir.

As Lyle reported forthis blog, the Justices have agreed to hear four new cases:Bond v. United States,University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar,Metrish v. Lancaster,and the Allen Stanford case; additional coverage of all four grants comes from Jonathan Stempel ofReuters. The Washington Posts Robert Barnes,Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes ofReuters, andtheAssociated Presshave coverage of the cert. grant in Bond, the case ofa Pennsylvania woman who was prosecuted under a federal law that implements a global chemical weapons treaty for trying to poison her husbands lover. Bonds case comes to the Court for the second time, as the Justices had previously considered whether she could be prosecuted under that law at all. In addition, Ilya Somin at theVolokh Conspiracycomments on the case, arguing that Congress’s constitutionalpower to make treaties “is best understood as a power . . . to make commitments regarding the use of its other enumerated powers, not a power that allows the federal government to legislate on whatever subjects it wants, so long as the issue is covered by a treaty.”

In three linked cases Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice,Willis of Colorado v. Troice, andProskauer Rose LLP v. Troice the Court will consider whether civil securities fraud lawsuits against law firms and insurance companies arising out of the investment Ponzi scheme operated by financier Allen Stanford can go forward. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.] Coverage of this case comes fromGreg Stohr ofBloomberg,Mark Sherman of theAssociated Press,and Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel ofReuters. The Associated Press (via TheWashington Post) reports onMetrish, which involvesthe constitutionality of Michigans retroactive withdrawal of a criminal suspects right to claim that the crime was the result of diminished mental capacity, and the blog of theChronicle of Higher Educationhas coverage ofNassar, whichinvolves the availability of a mixed motive claim by a worker who complains of retaliation on the job for exercising workplace rights.

Additional coverage of the Court included the roles played by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts in the oath-taking ceremonies of Vice President Biden and President Obama, respectively. As bothReutersand David Savage oftheLos Angeles Timesreported, Justice Sotomayor left almost immediately after the Vice President was sworn in so that she could make a book signing of her new memoir in New York City later that same day.David NakamuraandRobert Barnes of TheWashington Post have coverage,while Adam Liptak of TheNew York Times andPoliticos Josh Gerstein discuss the Chief Justice’s swearing in of President Obama in the context of the ideological opposition between the two men. And NPRs Nina Totenberg looks back in time at the Presidents 2009 swearing-in.

Finally, coverage of Justice Sotomayor’s memoir, My Beloved World, continued this weekend with reviews and analysis by David Savage of theLos Angeles Times,Ruth Marcusof The Washington Post, andEmily Bazelon, writing for TheNew York Times; atNPR, Nina Totenberg speaks withthe Justice about the role that books have played in her life.

Briefly:

• At the Washington Post,Jena McGregordiscusses Justice Clarence Thomas’s silence at oral argument and argues that perhaps “we should give him more credit for being the lone justice who seems to put listening at a premium,” as “[h]is defense of his taciturn tenure seems not only rational but sensible.” On a related note, the Washington Post’sChris Cillizzagives Justice Thomas the paper’s award for “Worst Week in Washington”and refers to Supreme Court watchers as “nerds” not unlike “those who build model railroads in their basements.”
• Meg Kinnard of the Associated Press reports on the Court’s recent cert. grant inAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
• The editorial board of The New York Times urges the Court to affirm the lower court’s decision inKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Managementand block efforts by the petitionerand his ideological allies “to stretch the notion of a regulatory taking far beyond any defensible limits.
• AtThe Nation, Patricia Williams discusses the current Courts political and constitutional values in the context of the recent calls for increased gun control (h/t Howard Bashman).
• UPIs Michael Kirkland provides an overview ofMissouri v. McNeely, including the commentary on and coverage of recent oral arguments in the case.
• Following up on last weeks oral argument in Alleyne v. United States, the editorial board of theLos Angeles Timesurges the Justices to overturnHarris v. United Stateson the ground that juries, rather than a judge, to determinewhether a crime was committed.
• In TheWashington Post, Robert Barnes reports that the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost female-contraceptive provision “is moving quickly to the high court, and bringing potent questions about religious freedom, gender equality and corporate ‘personhood.'”
• Atthis blog, Marty Lederman posts Parts II,III,IV, andVin his series on the Article III standing questions posed by the same-sex marriage casesHollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge toProposition 8) andUnited States v. Windsor (the challenge tothe federal Defense of Marriage Act).
• Also for this blog,Miriam Seifterreports on Wednesdays arguments inCity of Arlington v. FCCandCable, Telecommunications, and Technology Committee v. FCC, and observes that the challenge of distinguishing jurisdictional questions from others took center stage at those arguments. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to petitioner City of Arlington in the case.]
• Kevin Amerreviews Tuesdays arguments inLevin v. United States, in which the Justices will consider whether the Gonzalez Act waived the United Statess sovereign immunity as to battery claims arising from the conduct of military medical personnel.