Thursday round-up

The Court issued two opinions yesterday and heard arguments in two cases.

In its first opinion,Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Court held by a vote of seven to one that the Clean Water Act does not require permits for stormwater runoff from logging roads. Coverage of the opinion comes from Adam Liptak ofThe New York Times, Jeremy P. Jacobs ofE&E, Lawrence Hurley ofReuters, andThe Associated Press, while Scott Learn ofThe Oregoniancovers the response of the environmental activists who brought the original case. Warren Richey ofThe Christian Science Monitorreports on Justice Scalia’s solo dissent, while at theVolokh Conspiracy, Jonathan H. Adler argues that the dissent, and the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion, might signal that the Court is willing to reconsider the level of deference owed to agency interpretations of their own regulations.

In its second opinion,Wos v. E.M.A., the Court held that theanti-lien provision of the federal Medicaid statute pre-empts North Carolinas irrebuttable statutory presumption that one-third of any tort recovery by a Medicaid beneficiary is attributable to medical expenses. Coverage comes from Michael Doyle ofMcClatchy Newspapers, Steven D. Schwinn ofConstitutional Law Prof Blog, Terry Baynes of Reuters, andThe Associated Press.

The Court also heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases. In the first,Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court is consideringwhich federal appellate court the Federal Circuit or a nonspecialized regional one should hear a Takings Clause challenge to a federal raisin price stabilization scheme. Lyle reports on the argument forthis blog, while Michael Doyle ofMcClatchy Newspapersand Adam Liptak ofThe New York Timeshave further coverage. In yesterday’s second case,Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey, the Court is considering whether federal law preemptsstate statutory, common law negligence, and consumer protection act enforcement actions against a tow-motor carrier based on state law regulating the sale and disposal of a towed vehicle. Kali has posted transcripts of both arguments forthis blog.

Next week, the Court will hear oral argument in the two same-sex marriage cases: Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, andUnited States v. Windsor, the challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Forthis blog, Lyle Denniston covers the final round of reply briefs in theWindsor case, while atConstitution Daily, he discusses the possible impact of opinion polls on the Court’s decisions in the two cases. And in her Opinionator column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse looks at how the challenge to Prop 8 has changed public opinion on marriage equality. Richard Wolff ofUSA Todayprofiles the two couples at the heart of the Prop 8 litigation, while the ACLU’sBlog of Rightshas a post from the teenage son of a same-sex couple discussing the potential effect of theWindsor case on his family. AtConstitutional Law Prof Blog, Versely Rosales discusses theamicus brief in support of DOMA filed by the National Association of Evangelicals, while Damon Root ofReasoncomments on the federalist case against DOMA. California Lawyer has posted essays fromErwin Chemerinsky,Douglas W. Kmiec, andRory K. Littleon the marriage cases. (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.)

Other coverage focuses on Tuesdays decisions. At this blog, Debra Lyn Bassettanalyzes the Court’s unanimous opinion inThe Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, in which it held that a stipulation by a class-action plaintiff that he and the class that he purports to represent will seek damages that are less than the threshold for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 does not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Act. Michael Bobelian ofForbesdescribes the rulingas “clos[ing] a class action loophole,” while Paul J. Larkin Jr. and Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation’sThe Foundryblog call the opinion “a blow to state court bias.” And inKirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Court held that the “first sale” doctrine allows the owner of a copyrighted work legally made abroad to import it without permission of the copyright holder; at Forbes,Gary Shapirocalls the ruling a victory for consumers, whileEric Goldmanargues that the victory is “likely short-lived at best.”

Briefly:

• Deborah J. Vagins of the ACLU’sBlog of Rightsdiscusses two voting rights cases before the Court,Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, andArizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., a challenge to an Arizona law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and concludes that “[t]herole of the federal government in protecting our voting rights cannot be overstated.”
• Walter Pavlo ofForbesdiscussesKaley v. United States, in which the Court will consider whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain her counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges.
• Damon W. Root ofReasonasks “why . . . liberals keep bugging Ruth Bader Ginsburg about retirement.”
• Jessica Gresko ofThe Associated Press(via The Miami Herald) reports on the “vanity trip” taken by thousands of lawyers each year to be sworn in to the Supreme Court bar.