Friday round-up
on Apr 12, 2013 at 10:57 am
Thursday’s coverage of the Court primarily looked ahead to Monday’s oral arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the Court will consider whether human genes qualify as patentable subject matter. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr and Susan Decker consider the case’s potential impact on the biotechnology industry, suggesting that the case “has implications for the growing field of personalized medicine and efforts to map the human brain and discover new uses for embryonic stem cells.” By contrast, at Nature, Heidi Ledford suggests that “the implications of the court’s decision . . . may be narrower for business and medicine than many people hope and think.” In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Marcy Darnovsky and Karuna Jaggar urge the Court to hold that genes are not patentable, arguing that such a decision would be “a victory for all who put the public’s health and interests above efforts to privatize what all of us should share.” And at Bloomberg BNA’s Health Care Blog, John Aquino discusses the case in the context of the Court’s previous patentable subject matter decisions. Finally, in advance of Monday’s arguments, tomorrow at 6 p.m. C-SPAN Radio will air the latest installment in its series of historic oral arguments, featuring the oral argument in the 1980 case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, involving the patent-eligibility of living things.
Other coverage of the Court looked forward to other cases being heard at oral argument next week. For E&E Publishing, Jeremy Jacobs previews next Tuesday’s oral argument in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, in which the Court will consider whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act contains an unexpressed “market participant” exception permitting a municipal government to take action that would otherwise conflict with the Act’s express preemption clause, at least under specified circumstances. And for this blog, Steven Schwinn previews next Wednesday’s oral argument in United States v. Kebodeaux, in which the Court will consider whether Congress possesses the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties for the failure to register as a sex offender under the relevant provision of federal law, as applied to a person who was convicted of a sex offense under federal law but completed his criminal sentence before the enactment of the registration provision.
Mark Sherman of the Associated Press and Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) discuss Kachalsky v. Cacace, a case that the Court will consider at today’s Conference, which asks the Court to review not only whether the Second Amendment provides a right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home, but also whether state officials can violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses to law-abiding adults for lack of “proper cause” to bear arms for self-defense.
Briefly:
- ACSblog reports on an event at Harvard Law School regarding the access-to-counsel movement since Gideon v. Wainwright, on the occasion of that decision’s fiftieth anniversary.
