Tuesday round-up

AMY HOWE JAN 21, 2014 7:37 AM

On Friday the Court granted three new cases from the Justices’ private Conference earlier that day.  In two of the new cases, United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California, the Court will consider the extent to which the Constitution allows police to search (and prosecutors to then use) the contents of a cellphone belonging to someone whom they have arrested.  Lyle Denniston covered the grants for this blog; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and the Federal Evidence Review.  

This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in (among other cases) Harris v. Quinn, in which it will consider whether a group of home health-care workers who are paid by the state can be required to provide financial support for unions that represent them.  Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog, while in an op-ed for The Washington Post Moshe Marvit warns that, “[i]f the Supreme Court finds that home-care workers are not public employees with the right of exclusive representation and fair share fees, these workers will not be the only ones who suffer.”

Briefly:

• In the Washington Examiner, Sean Lengell profiles Justice Anthony Kennedy.
• At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost weighs in on last week’s oral arguments in McCullen v. Coakley, the challenge to a Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone around abortion clinics in that state.  Jost argues that “the unseen women already struggling with a painful decision who equally deserve effective protection of their constitutional rights.”
• Michael Kirkland of UPI reports on the Court’s recent grant in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, in which the Court will consider whether “a company ‘publicly performs’ a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet. “
• The Federal Evidence Review looks back at important evidence issues for 2013 and forward at similar issues for 2014, with the Court involved in both sets of issues.

[Disclosure:  The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in Riley v. California at the certiorari stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but it is not participating in the case at the merits stage.]

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY