Thursday round-up
on Dec 5, 2013 at 7:12 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Apel, a case pitting officials at a military base against an anti-war protester whom the military has banned from the area just outside the base designated as a “protest zone.” Lyle Denniston covered the argument for this blog, reporting that the Justices seemed largely uninclined to address the protester’s First Amendment claims; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, who agrees that the Court “was not in the mood for big constitutional questions,” and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, who suggests that, “even if the government wins the current round, . . . the justices might send the case back to the lower court to consider whether the First Amendment permits Mr. Apel to return to the Highway 1 protest zone.” Ruthann Robson analyzes the oral argument at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, where – after noting that Justice Breyer had “looked at the Google maps” of the air base — she concludes that “it’s doubtful that the Court will render an opinion in Apel destined for First Amendment treatises or casebooks. On the other hand, any opinion will surely be written in the shadow of First Amendment doctrine and theory.”
Briefly:
- At Letters Blogatory, Ted Folkman analyzed Tuesday’s opinion in Atlantic Marine Construction v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – which Ronald Mann also covered for this blog. Folkman characterizes the decision as “very well-reasoned. There is surprisingly little to critique, and the distinction the court draws between venue on the one hand and the effect of contractual agreements as to forum on the other is useful.”
