on Mar 7, 2013 at 10:15 am
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court again focused on last week’s oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At this blog, Amy reports on the argument (with audio) in Plain English, while Linda Greenhouse argues in her Opinionator column for The New York Times that “[t]he Roberts court stands on the brink of making an error of historic proportions” in striking down the law. In The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle reports that election law scholars see few options for the Court to craft a narrow opinion that does not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5, while at the ACLU’s Blog of Rights Laughlin McDonald urges the Court to “give substantial deference to the considered judgment of Congress” and “uphold Section 5.” At PrawfsBlawg, Deborah Borman draws on her experiences as an election protection volunteer in Illinois to argue that “[v]oter suppression is alive and well and living in a County near you during every election,” while Ilya Shapiro of Cato at Liberty defends the Chief Justice’s comparisons between Massachusetts and Mississippi during the oral argument, and NPR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook discussed the state of voting rights in Alabama with residents there (h/t Howard Bashman). Ryan J. Reilly of The Huffington Post reports that Senator Chris Coons of Delaware is planning a legislative response if the Court strikes down Section 5, while Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui, also at The Huffington Post, report that, contrary to Justice Scalia’s concerns at oral argument, “[m]any Senate Republicans . . . are willing to say that Section 5’s time has come and gone, and that Southern states should be treated no differently than the rest of the nation.” And at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson also examines Justice Scalia’s “racial entitlement” comments.
Coverage of Justice O’Connor’s recent activities and her new book of stories from the history of the Court also continues. Rasha Madkour of The Associated Press reviews the book, while Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog discusses her appearance Tuesday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (which Conor covered in yesterday’s round-up).
Justice Kennedy is in California this week for the opening of a library and learning center named after him at the federal courthouse in Sacramento. Coverage of his remarks at the opening ceremony comes from Judy Lin of The Associated Press (via The Reporter), and coverage of other landmarks named after living Justices also comes from The Associated Press (via The Washington Post).
- This blog’s “SCOTUS on camera” feature continues with Part 3 of Fabrizio di Piazza’s interview with Nina Totenberg, in which she discusses what does and does not make news, and how to interview a Justice.
- Also at this blog, Linda Greenhouse answers questions from Kali about the new afterword to her book on Roe v. Wade, “Before Roe.”
- NPR interviews Jeffrey Toobin about his recent profile of Justice Ginsburg for The New Yorker.
- Michael Keefer of The Arizona Republic reports that the Court upheld a stay of execution issued by the Ninth Circuit for Edward Harold Schad of Arizona.
- For this blog, Lyle reports that Oklahoma has filed a petition for certiorari in Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, seeking review of a decision by its state supreme court striking down a restriction on drugs used to induce abortion.
- Paul Clement recently delivered the Hallows Lecture at Marquette Law School, discussing the healthcare case from last term. Video of the event is now available online (thanks to Howard Bashman for the link).
- Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett has posted a transcript of Senator Rand Paul’s comments on Lochner v. New York during his filibuster yesterday of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director.
- Also at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reports on a cert petition he joined in Scott v. St. John’s Church in the Wilderness, asking the Court to review a decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals upholding an injunction against the display of “gruesome images” in places where children might see them.
- Again at the Volokh Conspiracy, Nick Rosencranz responds to arguments in the amicus brief filed by Dale Carpenter and others in United States v. Windsor, attacking the federal Defense of Marriage Act on federalism grounds.