Coverage of yesterday’s argument in Shelby County v. Holder continues to pour in, with reporting on the argument coming from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor, Marcia Coyle at the Blog of Legal Times, the PBS NewsHour, Ari Berman of The Nation, and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog.  Commentary on the argument comes from the editorial board of The New York Times, Emily Bazelon of Slate, Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog, Steven D. Schwinn of Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Rick Pildes at the Election Law Blog, and Joey Fishkin at Balkinization. Other coverage focuses on the role of specific Justices, with the editorial board of The Washington Post commenting on Justice Scalia’s “contempt of Congress,” while Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo focuses on Justice Sotomayor’s role in the argument; on a similar note, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post comments on the roles of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan at yesterday’s oral argument. The Alliance for Justice’s Justice Watch blog has commentary from Gilda Daniels, William Yeomans, Franita Tolson, and Bertrall Ross. Kali also posted an early round-up  with 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 in American 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 of The New York Times has coverage of the argument, as do Tom Schoenberg of Bloomberg News, Andrew Longstreth of Reuters, and Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen’s Consumer Law and Policy Blog. Chris Morran of Consumerist has commentary on the argument. Kali has posted transcripts of both arguments for this blog.

The Court also issued opinions in two cases yesterday. In Gabelli 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 of Forbes, Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required),  Mark Schoeff Jr. of Investment News, Hazel Bradford of Pensions & Investments, Reuters, and The Associated Press (via Business Insider).

In Amgen 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 of The New York Times, Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal, and Brian Wolfman of the Consumer Law and Policy Blog. Commentary on the decision comes from Rochelle Bobroff of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ed Mannino.

Other coverage focuses on Tuesday’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA Inc., holding that challengers to a 2008 global wiretapping law lacked standing.  Peter Margulies at Lawfare, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, and Max Bauer at PrivacySOS have commentary on the decision.


  • Lyle reports for this blog that the parties in United 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 of Buzzfeed reports that the Obama administration has yet to decide whether to weigh in as an amicus in the challenge to Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Today is the deadline for amicus briefs in support of the challengers.
  • Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic discusses Tuesday’s argument in Maryland v. King, in which the Court is considering whether the Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.
  • Michelle Olsen of Appellate Daily reports on Justice Souter’s post-retirement work on the First Circuit.
  • Damon W. Root of Reason reports on Justice Stevens’s post-retirement work, which he characterizes as efforts  to “rehabilitate his unpopular record.”
  • Demand Progress PAC has released a YouTube video discussing Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in which the Court is considering whether the Copyright Act permits the owner of a copy legally made or acquired abroad to reimport that copy without the copyright holder’s permission.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Cormac Early, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 28, 2013, 9:46 AM),