Thursday round-up

Coverage of yesterday’s argument inShelby County v. Holder continues to pour in, with reporting on the argument coming from Nina Totenberg ofNPR, Bill Mears ofCNN, Warren Richey of TheChristian Science Monitor, Marcia Coyle at theBlog of Legal Times,the PBS NewsHour, Ari Berman ofThe Nation, and Jeremy Leaming ofACSblog. Commentary on the argument comes from the editorial board ofThe New York Times, Emily Bazelon ofSlate, Rick Hasen of theElection Law Blog, Steven D. Schwinn ofConstitutional Law Prof Blog, Doug Kendall of theConstitutional Accountability Center, Rick Pildes at theElection Law Blog, and Joey Fishkin atBalkinization. Other coverage focuses on the role of specific Justices, with the editorial board ofThe Washington Postcommenting on Justice Scalia’s “contempt of Congress,” while Sahil Kapur ofTalking Points Memofocuses on Justice Sotomayor’s role in the argument; on a similar note, Dana Milbank ofThe Washington Postcomments on the roles of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan at yesterdays oral argument. The Alliance for Justice’sJustice Watchblog has commentary from Gilda Daniels, William Yeomans, Franita Tolson, and Bertrall Ross. Kali also posted an earlyround-upwith additional coverage of the argument. [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner et al., who filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.]

The Court also heard argument yesterday inAmerican Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, in which it will consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits federal courts to invalidate arbitration agreements that do not allow class arbitration of a federal-law claim. Binyamin Applebaum ofThe New York Timeshas coverage of the argument, as do Tom Schoenberg ofBloomberg News, Andrew Longstreth ofReuters, and Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen’sConsumer Law and Policy Blog. Chris Morran ofConsumeristhas commentary on the argument. Kali has posted transcripts of both arguments forthis blog.

The Court also issued opinions in two cases yesterday. InGabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a unanimous Court held that the statute of limitations for the SEC to bring civil suits seeking penalties for securities fraud runs from the time a fraud occurs, rather than the time it is discovered. Coverage of the decision comes from Daniel Fisher ofForbes, Brent Kendall ofThe Wall Street Journal(subscription required), Mark Schoeff Jr. ofInvestment News, Hazel Bradford ofPensions & Investments,Reuters, andThe Associated Press(via Business Insider).

InAmgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, the Court ruled that proof of materiality is not required to certify a plaintiff class in a securities fraud misrepresentation case. Coverage comes from Adam Liptak ofThe New York Times, Debra Cassens Weiss of theABA Journal, and Brian Wolfman of theConsumer Law and Policy Blog. Commentary on the decision comes from Rochelle Bobroff of theConstitutional Accountability CenterandEd Mannino.

Other coverage focuses on Tuesday’s decision inClapper v. Amnesty International USA Inc., holding that challengers to a 2008 global wiretapping law lacked standing. Peter Margulies atLawfare,Howard Wasserman atPrawfsBlawg, and Max Bauer atPrivacySOShave commentary on the decision.

Briefly:

• Lyle reports forthis blogthat the parties inUnited States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, have requested an additional sixty-five minutes of oral argument time to address the standing issues in the case.
• Chris Geidner ofBuzzfeedreports that the Obama administration has yet to decide whether to weigh in as an amicus in the challenge to Proposition 8 inHollingsworth v. Perry. Today is the deadline for amicus briefs in support of the challengers.
• Jeffrey Rosen ofThe New Republicdiscusses Tuesday’s argument inMaryland v. King, in which the Court is considering whetherthe Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.
• Michelle Olsen ofAppellate Dailyreports on Justice Souter’s post-retirement work on the First Circuit.
• Damon W. Root ofReasonreports on Justice Stevens’s post-retirement work, which he characterizes as efforts to “rehabilitate his unpopular record.”
• Demand Progress PAC has released a YouTubevideodiscussingKirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons,Inc., in which the Court is considering whether the Copyright Act permits theowner of a copy legally made or acquired abroad to reimport that copy without the copyright holder’s permission.