on Jun 27, 2014 at 10:51 am
Yesterday morning, the Court issued its decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, holding (in a unanimous opinion by Justice Breyer) that “the Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during the recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length.” Lyle Denniston covered the opinion for this blog, Amy Howe explained the ruling in Plain English, and Mark Walsh provided a “view” from the courtroom. Other early coverage comes from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal; Adam Liptak of The New York Times; Josh Gerstein at Politico; Jaclyn Belcyk at JURIST; Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Steven Mazie of The Economist; Greg Stohr at Bloomberg Businessweek; Bill Mears at CNN; and Richard Wolf of USA Today.
Commentary comes from Noah Feldman of Bloomberg View; Mark Tushnet of Balkinization; Will Baude at the Volokh Conspiracy; Eric Posner at Slate; Daniel Fisher of Forbes; Terry Eastland at the Weekly Standard; Leland Beck for the Federal Regulations Advisor; Douglas Topolski for the Ogletree Deakins blog; David French for the National Review; Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy; Jeff Shesol of the New Yorker; Peter Shane at RegBlog; Patrick Caldwell at Mother Jones; Christopher Schmidt at ISCOTUS; Carrie Severino at National Review; Samuel Kleiner at The New Republic; and Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute. Lastly, video coverage of the case comes from Sanford Greenberg at ISCOTUS.
The Court also issued its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, holding (in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) that a Massachusetts law which creates a thirty-five-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment. Lyle Denniston analyzed the opinion for this blog, and Kevin Russell discussed the impact of the case on the Court’s 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, upholding a different buffer zone around abortion clinics. Other coverage of the decision comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR; David Savage of the Los Angeles Times; Daniel Fisher at Forbes; Jennifer Haberkorn at Politico; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Brent Kendall, Stephanie Armour, and Louise Radnofsky of The Wall Street Journal; Adam Liptak of The New York Times; Laura Bassett for the Huffington Post; Howard Mintz of the Mercury News; Richard Wolf for USA Today; William Hibbitts at Jurist; and Bill Mears at CNN. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View; Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog; Roger Pilon at the Cato Institute; Emma Green of The Atlantic; Amanda Marcotte at Slate; Jonathan Keim at National Review; Mark Tushnet of Balkinization; Amanda Terkel for the Huffington Post; Matthew Schettenhelm for the IMLA; Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg; Ed Whelan at National Review; Ed Mannino on his personal blog; Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast; Simon Waxman at the Boston Review; Jordan Walsh at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights; Jessica Valenti at the Guardian; Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress; the editorial board of the Boston Globe; and Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy (who has writtenthreearticles on the decision.)
- Mark Shultz of the American Enterprise Institute argues that the Court’s decision earlier this week in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo is “a boon, not a bane” for innovation.
- Kenneth Jost of Jost on Justice describes the Chief Justice as the “Conciliator in Chief” for his role in crafting unanimous opinions.
- Steve Vladeck of Just Security reflects on the ten-year anniversary of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and Rasul v. Bush – three post-September 11 cases with huge implications for national security.
- Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo previews the Court’s upcoming ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which is expected on Monday.
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!