Breaking News

Monday round-up

Coverage of the same-sex marriage cases continued over the weekend.  In The Huffington Post, Sofia Resnick reports on an academic study critical of same-sex marriage, which was commissioned by a think-tank in an effort to influence the Court.  And in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes profiles the couple behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry.  Anticipating what a victory for same-sex advocates could mean in United States v. Windsor, Lisa Leff reports for The Associated Press that accountants are “already encouraging same-sex couples . . . to seek prospective tax refunds, back retirement payments and other spousal subsidies they may have been denied.”  At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan H. Adler and Sasha Volokh have new posts in the debate (mentioned by this blog on Friday) over the federalism theory underpinning the legal scholars’ amicus brief in Windsor.  In a video discussion online at The Wall Street Journal, Colleen McCain Nelson reports on Bill Clinton’s op-ed last week for The Washington Post, in which he urged the Court to strike down DOMA.  In Wilson, North Carolina, an eleven-year-old received a response from Justice Sotomayor to her letter asking the Court to overturn DOMA, writes Corey Friedman in The Wilson Times.


  • For this blog, Lyle reports on the latest developments in the Obama administration’s efforts to seek en banc review in the D.C. Circuit of the validity of the convictions of Yemini national Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul.  The dispute over the power of military commissions to try terrorist suspects is “ultimately expected to reach the Supreme Court,” writes Lyle.  Alan Rozenshtein covers the petition for rehearing at Lawfare.
  • Joan Biskupic reviews Justice O’Connor’s latest book, a “tidy collection of essays” titled Out of Order, for The Washington Post.
  • In his column for The New York Times, David Leonhardt considers the views of liberal critics of affirmative action.  He discusses those views and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin at more length on Economix, also via The New York Times.  Roger Clegg responds at Bench Memos, arguing that leaving any door open to consideration of race in admissions will mean that universities will “find a way to claim that they have no choice” but to consider race.
  • Writing at The Huffington Post, Ryan J. Reilly and Sam Stein report that, in 2009, the Obama administration prepared a statement in anticipation of the Court striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utilities District No. 1 v. Holder.  Although the Court decided the case on other grounds then, the authors suggest that it may be time to “dust off” those plans.  At The Hill’s Pundits Blog, Brent Budowsky argues that “the act should be upheld, period.”
  • Education as the path to opportunity is the topic of Anderson Cooper’s conversation with Justice Sotomayor on-site at her old Bronx school, Blessed Sacrament, which “360” reports will be closing.
  • At this blog, our “SCOTUS on camera” feature concludes with Part 5 of Fabrizio di Piazza’s interview with Nina Totenberg.  She discusses the Justices’ shifting ideological positions, today’s “hot bench,” and her efforts to convince people to “sit up and pay attention” to the Court.
  • Also at this blog, Ronald Collins offers suggestions to fill out your Court reading list, including forthcoming books by Marcia Coyle and Jess Bravin.
  • In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie vows to take the legality of sports gambling all the way to the Court, if need be, reports David Porter for The Associated Press.
  • In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on the experiences of retired Justices who opt to serve on lower courts, observing that their opinions “do not fare particularly well” at the Court.
  • Lincoln Caplan, in an editorial for The New York Times, reports on the waning legacy of Gideon v. Wainwright, particularly in state courts where “almost 94 percent of all state criminal cases [are] settled in plea bargains — often because of weak defense lawyers who fail to push back.”

Recommended Citation: Allison Trzop, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 11, 2013, 9:32 AM),