Yesterday was a big day at the Court, with two opinions and two arguments in high-profile cases.  In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of affirmative action by public universities there.  Kali rounded up early coverage of, and commentary on, that decision for this blog.  Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law blog, Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST, and Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News.  Commentary comes from Mike Sacks for The Daily Beast, Ilya Shapiro at Cato at Liberty, Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Michael Dorf at Verdict, Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and Marci Hamilton at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.  In Navarette v. California, the Court upheld a traffic stop that was based on an anonymous tip and resulted in arrest.  Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Katie Barlow and Nina Totenberg at NPR and from Amy Mathieu at JURIST; commentary comes from Tim Lynch at Cato at Liberty.

After issuing decisions, the Court heard oral argument first in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a challenge to an Ohio law that criminalizes false statements during a political campaign, followed by ABC v. Aereo, Inc., in which the Court is considering whether the streaming of TV broadcasts over the Internet for a fee violates federal copyright laws.  Andrew Hamm rounded up early coverage of both arguments for this blog.  Subsequent coverage of the decision in SBA List comes from Lyle Denniston for this blog and Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire.  Commentary comes from Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog and Damon Root at  Lyle Denniston also covered the argument in Aereo for us, with other coverage coming from Brian Stelter of CNN Money (here and here) and from Michael Risch and Bruce Boyden at


  • Greenwire’s Jeremy P. Jacobs profiles one of the individuals behind CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, in which the Court will hear oral arguments today.
  • At Forbes, Ilya Shapiro reviews the constitutional amendments that retired Justice John Paul Stevens proposes in his new book.
  • Also at Forbes, Michael Bobelian discusses Monday’s oral argument in POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, in which the Court is considering whether a private party can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.   (Ronald Mann reported on the argument for this blog yesterday.)
  • At his Harmless Error blog, Luke Rioux discusses Monday’s grant in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Court will consider whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.
  • In The Jerusalem Post, Yonah Jeremy Bob discusses this week’s cert. grant in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, in which the Court will weigh in on the dispute between the White House and Congress over whether Israel should be designated as the place of birth of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem.

[Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in POM Wonderful and on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Schuette.  The firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel to the petitioner in Heien at the cert. stage, but he is not participating in the case at the merits stage.  However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 23, 2014, 6:10 AM),