Breaking News

Monday round-up

This weekend’s coverage of and commentary on the Court continued the focus on this past Term as a whole, as well as the Court’s decisions in the Voting Rights Act case,  Shelby County v. Holder, and the two same-sex marriage cases, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry Writing for the Huffington Post, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy criticizes the Court’s recent decision in Shelby County, arguing that the Roberts Court has been “removing just enough that [election laws] are rendered brain dead, and yet leaving just enough intact that the Supreme Court can claim it did no real harm because technically the law is still alive.” By contrast, LeRoy Goldman praises the decision in his column for the Hendersonville Times-News , arguing that the law is now unnecessary and that it creates “a class of political elites that benefit from majority-minority congressional districts.” And at Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost urges Congress and the Department of Justice to “make section 5 usable again” in the wake of the decision. Finally, at CNN Roger Parloff addresses the question that remains after Windsor and Perry – namely, whether states can constitutionally ban same-sex marriage; Parloff speculates that, although Justice Anthony Kennedy may have been ready to strike down California’s Proposition 8, Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer were “actually more reluctant than Kennedy to issue a sweeping, disruptive ruling, overturning the laws of 38 states for simply having defined marriage as it had been defined since time immemorial up until about ten years ago.”


  • Last Tuesday, Arthur Spitzer moderated a panel discussion with reporters who cover the Court, which was broadcast on C-SPAN. The video of the panel, in which the reporters discussed the Court as an institution, can be found here.
  • At Letters Blogatory, Ted Folkman previews the next Term, looking ahead to some of the international law cases that the Court has already granted, as well as some pending petitions that may be worth watching.

Disclosures: 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. In addition, 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 Perry, while the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in Windsor.

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 8, 2013, 9:51 AM),