Wednesday round-up

AMY HOWE NOV 6, 2013 8:47 AM

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Bond v. United States, a Pennsylvania woman’s challenge to her conviction for violating federal laws implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Lyle covered the argument for this blog, while I added a report in Plain English.  Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Mark Wolf at Education Week’s School Law Blog, Elizabeth LaForgia of JURIST (who also covers the other oral arguments yesterday), and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.  Commentary on the oral argument comes from Marty Lederman at Opinio Juris, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Elizabeth Wydra for the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, and Rep. Steve Stockman at American Thinker.

The Court also issued its first opinion of the Term yesterday, unanimously reversing the Sixth Circuit in Burt v. Titlow, a case presenting questions relating to ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargaining context. Coverage of the decision comes from Cynthia Miley at JURIST; Kent Scheidegger weighs in on the decision at Crime and Consequences, as does Andrew Cohen for The Atlantic.

Today the Court will hear oral argument in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a challenge to a New York town’s practice of beginning its town council meetings with a prayer.  Lyle previewed the argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English.  Other previews come from Nina Totenberg of NPR and Thomas Baker for the American Bar Association.  The Court will also hear oral argument in Mississippi v. AU Optronics, in which the Court will consider the circumstances a state’s parens patriae lawsuit can be removed to federal court as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Avi Schick and Kiran Patel preview the case for Slate.

Other commentators look ahead to the oral arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB.  Pamela Karlan discusses the case at the Boston Review, and Mark Tushnet does the same at ACSblog.

Briefly:

• Lawyers for Shelby County, Alabama, have asked a federal district court to award them two million dollars in fees arising from their role in last Term’s voting rights case.  Zoe Tillman reports for the Blog of Legal Times.
• The editorial board of The Columbus Dispatch joins the push for cameras at the Court, arguing that “[t]he Constitution guarantees that court proceedings be open to the public. In a time when broadcasting them to millions is easy, limiting access to those physically in the courtroom falls short of the spirit of that guarantee.”
• Adam Serwer of MSNBC has an extended report on Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, in which the Court granted review to consider whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act.
• At JURIST, Richard Briffault weighs in on McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the Court is considering the constitutionality of aggregate campaign contribution limits.
• At Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson discusses Monday’s oral argument in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., in which the Court is considering what constitutes “changing clothes” for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Sam Bagenstos analyzed the oral argument for this blog.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY