on Oct 17, 2013 at 10:20 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in two cases. At issue in the first case, Kansas v. Cheever, was was whether a defendant forfeits his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when he introduces expert testimony to support his defense that he was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the crime, thereby permitting the state to use contrary expert testimony gleaned from a court-ordered psychiatric exam. I covered the argument for this blog; other coverage comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences.
In the second case, Kaley v. United States, the Justices heard oral argument on whether a married couple whose assets were frozen after their indictment is entitled to a pretrial hearing to challenge the probable cause for their indictment when they need the frozen assets to hire their counsel of choice. I covered the case for this blog; other coverage comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today. Jaclyn Belcyzk covers both cases for JURIST.
Tuesday’s argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a challenge to an amendment to the Michigan constitution that bans the use of affirmative action at that state’s public universities, continues to spur coverage and commentary. Joan Biskupic of Reuters looks at the Chief Justice’s role at the oral argument, observing that he “matched rhetoric to action with a pithiness that underscores his opposition to racial preferences”; other coverage comes from Bill Mears at CNN. At Minding the Campus, Richard Kahlenberg argues that the case reflects “the enormous evolution of the civil rights movement away from its original principles,” while at Angry Bear, Beverly Mann focuses on the use of socioeconomic diversity to foster racial diversity on campus; in another post at Angry Bear, a graduate student at the University of Michigan responds to Mann’s post. And in an op-ed in the National Review, Roger Clegg urges the Court to “take this opportunity to make some amends to those who have been fighting for the principle of colorblind law but have been thwarted by bad judicial decisions.”
On Tuesday the Court also issued orders from last week’s Conference. Lyle discussed the order list generally for this blog, and in a separate post he discussed the Court’s announcement that it would review the federal government’s authority to prevent global warming by regulating “greenhouse gases.” Other coverage of the greenhouse gas grant comes from Leland Beck at Federal Regulations Advisor and Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire, who explains a “[t]ricky permit issue” that divides some of the challengers to the EPA regulations at issue.
- At the Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on a new addition to the National Portrait Gallery: a life-sized portrait of the four female Justices.
- At Forbes, Michael Bobelian weighs in on Tuesday’s oral argument in Daimler AG v. Bauman, a case involving the authority of U.S. courts to consider claims brought against foreign corporations stemming from alleged human rights violations overseas.
- In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse uses the upcoming “Persons Day” in Canada, commemorating the day in 1929 when a court ruled that women were indeed “persons” for purposes of Canada’s basic law, and therefore eligible for appointment to the Canadian senate, as a jumping-off point to discuss originalism in the United States.
- At the Ogletree Deakins blog, Hera Arsen discusses the Court’s dismissal of Madigan v. Levin, in which it heard oral argument last week, as improvidently granted.
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Schuette. Russell also represented the respondents in Daimler AG. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]