Thursday round-up
Briefly:
- In The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses last week’s grant in the two cell phone privacy cases, United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California, and observes that what she “find[s] most intriguing at the moment is watching how judges respond to the challenge of figuring out how old precedents fit with new realities.”
- At Balkinization, Marty Lederman analyzes (and criticizes) Conestoga Wood’s argument, in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, arguing that the law “is not nearly as full of ‘holes’ as the plaintiffs would have it. It does not ‘leave appreciable damage’ to the government’s interests unaddressed.”
- At The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, Jess Bravin reports on Tuesday’s oral arguments in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the “Raging Bull” case.
- At ACSblog, Ann Hodges analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in Harris v. Quinn, concluding that the “case has the potential to overturn the labor relations system that has prevailed in this country for almost 80 years.”
- At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman has a brief discussion of yesterday’s opinion in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, in which the Court held that, when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee to establish that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of infringement.
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in Riley, but the firm will not be involved in the proceedings on the merits. Moreover, the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY