Coverage and commentary focused on the five opinions that the Court issued yesterday; this blog’s round-ups of the early coverage of the decisions can be found here and here.
Coverage of the opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters is preempted by federal law, comes from Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (audio), Bill Mears of CNN, Jess Bravin and Tamara Audi of The Wall Street Journal, Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Laura Klein Mullen at JURIST, and Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com. Commentary comes from Derek T. Muller at Excess of Democracy, while at The Daily Beast, Richard L. Hasen argues that although the decision may look like a win for federalism, it “could shift some power in elections back to the states.” Both the Brennan Center for Justice and the Constitutional Accountability Center hailed the decision as a “victory.”
Coverage of the opinion in Salinas v. Texas, in which the Court held that prosecutors did not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights by using his pre-arrest silence as evidence against him at trial because he had never expressly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, comes from Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal, Tim Lynch at Cato At Liberty, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.
Coverage of the opinion in Maracich v. Spears , in which the Court held that the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act prohibits the use of protected data from state drivers’ databases to solicit clients, comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST and Walter Olson at Cato At Liberty, who notes that the majority in the case is the polar opposite of the majority in Maryland v. King, another privacy case in which the Court upheld a Maryland law authorizing law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from individuals arrested for “serious” crimes.
Coverage of the opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, in which the Court held that the government and private parties can bring lawsuits to challenge payments made by brand-name drug makers to keep would-be competitors who make generic substitutes temporarily out of their markets, comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Jaclyn Belczyk also covers the Court’s opinion in Alleyne v. United States, in which the Court held that any fact which increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to the jury. Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic discusses both Alleyne and Salinas, arguing that the cases demonstrate the depth of the ideological split on the Court.
Briefly:
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company et al. as an amicus in support of the petitioner in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis; the firm’s Tejinder Singh was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.
If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY