Monday round-up

This weekend’s clippings continued the focus on the same-sex marriage cases,Hollingsworth v. PerryandUnited States v. Windsor, argued late last month. In theLos Angeles Times,David Savage and Maura Dolan discuss comments made by several Justices at the oral arguments suggesting that same-sex parenting was a new and uncertain development; they report that these comments have “startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others.”Writing for theHuffington Post, Peter Dreier compares the same-sex marriage cases toLoving v. Virginia and concludes that [i]t is hard to see how the legal case for same-sex marriage is any different. Also at theHuffington Post,Donna Hall notes that the “media coverage of the hearings highlighted the incisive questioning of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan” because “the quotable zingers and tough interrogation belonged entirely to the women. [Disclosures: Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on anamicusbrief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor inWindsor.Tejinder Singh, also of Goldstein & Russell, was among the counsel on anamicusbrief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents inPerry.]

Additional coverage of the Court this weekend addressed two of the Term’s other cases. In an op-ed for TheWashington Post, Jeffrey Rosenfeld and Christopher Mason urge the Justices to hold that human genes are not patentable inAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., writing that if the Court “allowsthese types of patents to stand, it will put the endeavors of openly researching, preventing and treating lethal diseases on a lower level of importance than a set of ill-conceived property rights.” And in an op-ed forUSA Today, James Bovard argues that the Court should “smack down the raisin racket” at issue inHorne v. Department of Agriculture,in which the Court is considering which legal avenue a regular federal district court or the Court of Federal Claims a company must use to challenge the governments assessment of a sizable fine for violating a federal agencys order, when the company claimsthat the fine is an invalid taking of property.

Briefly:

• At the blog of theNational Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston examines the twice-relisted cert. petition inElmbrook School District v. Doe,which asks the Court to decide whether the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from conducting a high school graduation in a church building if the function has no religious content and the government selected the venue for reasons of secular convenience.
• Writing for theHuffington Post, Laura Bassett discusses the prospect that the Court will take up the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate in the next year, in light of the Tenth Circuit’s recent agreement to expedite and hear en banc a lawsuit that challenges this provision.
• AtCato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro discusses the Cato Institute’samicusbrief inAgency for International Development v. Alliance for Open SocietyInternational.
• PBS’sJudy Woodruff speaks with retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor about her new book,Out of Order, which contains a collection of historical anecdotes about the Court.
• UPDATED: Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, which filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, will hold a press briefing on the case, which is scheduled for oral argument next week. Interested media should email [email protected] or call 917 365-7848 to RSVP for the call.
• In a post at the U.K. Supreme Court Blog, this blogs Lyle Denniston describes the same-sex marriage cases as a political issue gone legal.