Breaking News

Friday round-up

Coverage of the Court’s decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, upholding Michigan’s ban on the use of affirmative action in public universities, continues with an analysis from Lisa Karen Atkins at the Ogletree Deakins blog.  At Talking Points Memo, Sahil Kapur writes that, although “there has been no shortage of rancorous and transformative debates about race in the Supreme Court . . . it hasn’t gotten as personal as it did this week.”  Bill Rankin of Cox Newspapers (via NewsOK) looks at the effect that the Court’s decision may have on challenges to constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.  At the National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, Jordan Lorence considers the same question and concludes that, after Tuesday, “a Supreme Court decree commanding states to redefine marriage looks a bit less inevitable.”  Other commentary on the decision comes from Walter Olson at Cato at Liberty; from Liliana Garces, William Kidder, and Gary Orfield at ACSblog; and Gabriel Chin at ACSblog.

At the IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog, Edward Lee analyzes Tuesday’s argument in the Internet TV case ABC v. Aereo.  (I covered the oral argument in Plain English for this blog yesterday.)  And in a post at The New Yorker, Michael Phillips argues that “Aereo is simply a well-reviewed, and only slightly more expensive, upgrade on the old rabbit ears. The Supreme Court may find a legal way to shut it down. But its loss will come at a cost to competition and the principle that the public airwaves are truly free to the public.”


  • In a video for ISCOTUSnow, Sheldon Nahmod previews next Monday’s argument in Lane v. Franks, in which the Court will consider the scope of First Amendment protections for an employee who testifies in court.  (Ruthann Robson previewed the case for this blog.)
  • At Opinio Juris, Michael Ramsey weighs in on Monday’s argument in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, in which the Court is considering whether U.S. courts can require Argentina to disclose the location of its assets.  “Perhaps surprisingly,” he says, “the answer should be yes”:  “creating a blanket protection against disclosure of assets under the FSIA is contrary to both the statute and the needs of the international rule of law.”
  • At The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh urges the Court to grant review in a set of challenges, slated for consideration at the Justices’ private conference today, to Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury rule.
  • Beverly Mann of Angry Bear discusses both Schuette and Wednesday’s decision in the habeas case White v. Woodall, which Jordan Steiker covered for this blog.

[Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in Lane.  The firm was also among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Schuette.  However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 25, 2014, 7:20 AM),