on Oct 29, 2013 at 8:58 am
Yesterday the National Portrait Gallery unveiled a new life-sized portrait of the four female Justices. Tony Mauro reports on the event, which included remarks by artist Nelson Shanks, for the Blog of Legal Times.
Other coverage of the Court looks ahead to the cases scheduled for oral argument in the next sitting, which begins on November 4. In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Fernandez v. California, in which the Court will consider whether a defendant must be present and object when police officers ask a co-tenant for permission to conduct a search without a warrant. At Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland E. Beck previews the argument in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corporation, in which the Court will consider what constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. And at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger dubs November 5 “federalism day” at the Court and discusses the role of the states in that day’s cases: Bond v. United States – which he describes as a “rare criminal case where the defendant is right” – and Sprint Communications v. Jacobs, which Scott Dodson previewed yesterday for this blog.
At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History blog, David H. Gans previews the December 4 argument in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, in which the Court will consider whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. Gans urges the Court to “permit the Fair Housing Act claims of minority residents of Mt. Holly Gardens to go forward and recognize, consistent with the Constitution’s text and history, that redressing unjustified disparate impacts on racial minorities by the government is both consistent with, and necessary to, fulfilling the promise of equality contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Fernandez. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]