Yesterday’s coverage focused on the full Court’s refusal to stay the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board order in the wake of a ruling by the D.C. Circuit that President Obama’s recess appointments to that board were unconstitutional. As Conor noted in yesterday’s round-up, on Monday HealthBridge Management sought a stay from Justice Ginsburg; when she denied the company’s application, HealthBridge then unsuccessfully refiled the application with Justice Scalia, who referred the application to the full Court. Lyle has coverage for this blog; other coverage comes from Marcia Coyle of the Blog of Legal Times, Deepak Gupta of the Consumer Law and Policy Blog, and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters.
Other coverage focuses on the upcoming argument in Maryland v. King, in which the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes. Arianne de Vogue of ABC News has coverage, as does David Kravets of Wired.
Other coverage focuses on Justice Sotomayor. Jordan Teicher of New York Magazine (h/t Howard Bashman) reports that the Justice has changed her mind about allowing cameras in the courtroom, while Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports on some controversy surrounding the Justice’s participation in a Pepsi-sponsored event for women who attended Yale.
- In her Opinionator column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses Knox v. SEIU, last Term’s decision in which the Court limited the ability of unions to impose special assessments on their members for political activities without their affirmative consent.
- At Balkinization, David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center discusses an amicus brief filed by constitutional law scholars in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- In her Verdict column for Justia, Sherry F. Colb discusses the Fifth Amendment issues raised by Salinas v. Texas, in which the Court will consider whether a suspect has the right to remain silent before he has been arrested or received Miranda warnings. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the co-counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
- At The Huffington Post,Fred Wertheimer discusses cert. petitions pending before the Court in two campaign finance cases — Danielczyk v. United States, a challenge to the ban on direct corporate campaign spending in the Federal Campaign Finance Act, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a challenge to the limit on total contributions by an individual to candidates, political parties, and Political Action Committees (PACs).