Round-up of news on today’s opinions
on Jun 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Today the Court released three opinions. A full menu of the blog’s own coverage is here.
In Shelby County v. Holder, this Term’s challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court held that Section 4 of the law, which identifies the state and local governments that are subject to the Act’s “preclearance” requirement, is unconstitutional based on “current conditions” in the United States. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the decision – by Chief Justice John Roberts – “all but invalidates that preclearance requirement, leaving it without force unless Congress can enact a new method for determining which jurisdictions are covered.” And at Slate’s ongoing “Breakfast Table” series on the Court’s end-of-Term decisions, Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner discuss the opinion. Further coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Pete Williams and Erin McClam of NBC News, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA Today, Bill Mears of CNN, Fox News, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, Martin J. Reed of The Birmingham News, David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn of Politico, Sahil Kapur of TPM, Eyder Peralta, Scott Neuman, and Mark Memmott of NPR, and Debbie Elliott of NPR.
Other Shelby County-related coverage focused on the statement made by the President, who described himself as “deeply disappointed” by the Court’s decision. USA Today’s David Jackson and David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times have more on that story. TPM’s Sahil Kapur covers today’s reaction from Attorney General Eric Holder. And Tom Curry of NBC News and Susan Davis of USA Today look at possible next steps for Congress after today’s decision.
In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not prevent termination of the biological father’s paternal rights. Coverage and commentary come from Timothy Williams and Dan Frosch of the The New York Times, CNN’s Bill Mears, Reuters, USA Today’s Richard Wolf, the AP’s Jesse J. Holland, and Josh Voorhees of Slate; Emily Bazelon also weighs in on the opinion on Slate’s “Breakfast Table” feature, arguing that although the case is “heartbreaking,” the Court’s decision is “probably right.”
In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Court ruled that withholding development permits may mean that governments owe compensation to land owners. NPR’s Mark Memmott, the ABA Journal’s Debra Cassens Weiss, Daniel Fisher of Forbes, Reuters, and the Associated Press (via The Washington Post) all have coverage.
[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Shelby County.]