Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

We have changed our round-up format!  In an effort to simplify the process for our round-up team, going forward we will only include in the round-up news articles and posts that are submitted to us.  If you have (or know of) an article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] so that we can consider it.

With the culmination of this Term’s scheduled oral arguments, reporters and commentators have turned their attention to the Court’s recently released opinions along with those that have yet to be handed down.

Coverage of Monday’s decision in McBurney v. Young (which Sarah covered in yesterday’s round-up and Lyle recapped on Monday for this blog) continued to draw coverage yesterday.  The unanimous decision held that Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, granting Virginia residents access to all public records but withholding such rights from non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause.  Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Laura Kebede of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and Julia Zebley at JURIST also have coverage.

Other coverage focused on Boyer v. Louisiana, in which the Court was considering a speedy trial challenge but which it ultimately dismissed as improvidently granted (“DIG”).  At this blog, Rory Little analyzes the Court’s order and the opinions that accompanied it, while at Election Law Blog Rick Hasen discusses the likelihood that such an outcome might be likely in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Coverage of other orders from Monday’ s order list continued to make headlines, including the Court’s cert. denial in Alabama v. United States, a case involving the “anti-harboring” provision in Alabama’s 2011 immigration law, making it a crime to help undocumented immigrants enter or live in the state.  Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, and Julia Zebley of JURIST all have coverage, while Lawrence Downes of The New York Times criticizes the Alabama law as “cruel and ludicrous, and as the courts have noted more than once, unconstitutional.”


  • At the blog Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston looks at the possibility that the Court might repudiate one of its most controversial decisions: the World War II detainment of Japanese-Americans in internment camps.
  • At the Criminal Justice Section of the ABA, Rory Little summarizes this Term’s criminal cases.
  • At JURIST, John Rothchild examines the possible impact of the Court’s recent decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in which the Court held that the “first sale” doctrine, allowing the owner of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy as he wishes, applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.
  • At Talking Points Memo, Sahil Kapur discusses retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s recently expressed doubts on whether the Court should have granted review in Bush v. Gore (which Sarah also covered in yesterday’s round-up).  [Disclosure:  The law firm of Thomas C. Goldstein, P.C., now known as Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to respondent Al Gore in that case.]
  • At the blog Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland E. Beck notes that the Solicitor General “has filed the expected petition for certiorari” seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.  (Lyle covered that filing for this blog.)

Recommended Citation: Conor McEvily, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 1, 2013, 11:30 AM),