Breaking News

Thursday round-up

Coverage of the Court continues to focus on the fallout from its recent decisions in United States v. Windsor (striking down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (holding that the proponents of California’s ban on same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend it on appeal).  Nina Totenberg of NPR reports on Monday’s ruling by a federal district court that relied on Windsor to award survivor’s benefits from a law firm’s profit-sharing plan to the widow of a same-sex marriage. And at the American Constitution Society’s blog, Steve Sanders discusses a district court ruling last week that also relied on Windsor in ordering Ohio to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Maryland.  Sanders agrees that the decision was a “just and humane outcome,” but he criticizes the opinion for “seem[ing] conclusory and lacking in rigor.” And at JURIST, Elizabeth Wydra argues that the state-by-state strategy adopted by some marriage equality advocates after the Court’s ruling in Perry “is not what the Constitution demands” as it forgets “the true promise of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality”


  • At this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on a cert. petition filed in NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a challenge to federal laws that prevent licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to minors.
  • In an “academic highlight” for this blog, Amanda Frost discusses a recent article by Jim Pfander on the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s power to appoint judges to specialized U.S. courts.
  • And at this blog, “SCOTUSblog on Camera” continues with part three of the conversation between Fabrizio di Piazza and Geoffrey Stone.
  • At USA Today, Richard Wolf looks back at the career and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she completes her twentieth year on the Court.
  • At The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen shares excerpts from a speech given by Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Chautauqua Institution last Monday, arguing that the lack of attention given to the speech points to a need for a Supreme Court media pool.
  • At ABAJournal, Mark Walsh reviews the Court’s decision in this past Term’s Maryland v. King, in which the Court upheld a law authorizing the collection of DNA samples from those arrested for “serious” crimes.
  • At the Constitutional Accountability Center, David H. Gans responds in continuing discussion of next Term’s campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which Gans calls “a sequel to Citizens United.”


[Disclosure: Tejinder Singh 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 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.]

Recommended Citation: Dan Stein, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 1, 2013, 9:38 AM),