In his column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman contends that, although Justice Antonin Scalia erred in his characterization “of the Environmental Protection Agency’s position in a 13-year-old case for which he wrote the opinion,” Scalia was nonetheless “right about how the court’s opinion on Tuesday in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation created tension with precedent. And that, in turn, may reveal something pretty fascinating about the culture of environmental regulation.”  Editorial boards continue to weigh in on the decision, including those of The Washington Post, the York (Pa.) Dispatch, the Waco Tribune-Herald, The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, and The Buffalo News.

California Lawyer has Rory Little’s interview with Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who discusses (among other things) the Affordable Care Act litigation, the operations of the SG’s office, and clerking for Justice William Brennan.  (Video of the interview is available here.)

At Minding the Campus, Roger Clegg emphasizes the similarities between Michigan ban on the use of affirmative action by public universities and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, asserting that “to say that the two prohibitions are not identical requires one to argue that you can give a “preference” to some racial/ethnic groups without “discriminating” against the other racial/ethnic groups” –- an argument that he describes as “silly.” And in commentary on Schuette at the John William Pope Center, he argues that “[r]acial preferences in college admissions might have seemed to be a good idea fifty years ago, but with increased scrutiny from the courts and skepticism among voters and politicians that they have beneficial results, they may not last much longer. Here’s hoping they don’t.”

At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Daniel Nazer discusses Wednesday’s oral argument in the patent case Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies and urges the Court to “restore the sensible rule that only a single entity (or its agents) can infringe a patent.”

At crImmigration, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández looks at Heien v. North Carolina and Johnson v. United States, two cases in which the Court recently granted review that could have potential implications for the intersection of criminal law and immigration.

Send us your links!  We depend on our readers to send us submissions for the daily round-up.  If you have a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you would like us to consider, please email it to roundup [at]  Thank you!

[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 this case at the cert. stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but he is not participating in the case at the merits stage.  Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Schuette.  In any event, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 2, 2014, 8:23 AM),