Thursday round-up
on Mar 6, 2014 at 8:44 am
Yesterday the Court issued three decisions in argued cases, including in Lozano v. Alvarez, in which it held that the one-year period to file a petition seeking a child’s return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be equitably tolled. I covered the decision for this blog; other coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley of Reuters.
Briefly:
- In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses the upcoming argument in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, arguing that, “[i]n one sense, the accumulating disputes about church and state just represent old debates in contemporary guises. But the corporate identity of these claimants to religious protection adds a new and troubling dimension at a time when the Supreme Court seems intent on enhancing corporate power.”
- In an op-ed for Forbes, Trevor Burrus weighs in on Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a case involving the right to bring a lawsuit to challenge a state law which prohibits false statements about a candidate during an election campaign. He suggests that “[t]his is a good time for the Supreme Court to hear a case about alleged political lies,” and he urges the Court to “simply strike down the law.”
- At the Washington Legal Foundation’s blog The Legal Pulse, Richard Samp encourages the Court to grant review in Mutual First Federal Credit Union v. Charvat, a case on Friday’s Conference involving Congress’s authority to confer Article III standing. The Court should then rule, Samp contends, that “attorneys will no longer be permitted to flout Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the filing of federal lawsuits to those who have actually suffered an injury.”
- At the Ogletree Deakins blog, Jeffrey P. Dunlaevy reports on Tuesday’s opinion in Lawson v. FMR LLC, in which the Court held that the anti-whistleblower protection provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies to employees of private contractors working for public companies. (Geoffrey Rapp analyzed the decision for this blog.)
