Breaking News

Monday round-up

The Court is expected to issue orders and opinions this morning, but the big news on Friday and over the weekend came from papers that are over two decades old, with the release of documents related to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer from the Clinton White House.  Writing for the Legal Times, Tony Mauro and Todd Ruger have coverage of the newly released documents, while The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin and Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog focus on comments by Ian Gershengorn, now the Principal Deputy Solicitor General, that are critical of then-Judge Breyer.


  • In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage and Timothy Phelps look at the role that Justice Samuel  Alito – whom they describe as “a rising power inside the court and one of its most significant new justices in at least two decades” – could play in several high-profile cases this Term.
  • At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Brianne Gorod urges the Court to grant review in Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson, in which a California prisoner has asked the Court to weigh in on whether a non-final dismissal is a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision.
  • In posts at Circuit Splits (here and here), Dru Stevenson discusses a new article by Aaron-Andrew Bruhl which looks at the difficulties of quantifying circuit splits and the Court’s behavior resolving them.
  • At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re looks at the Court’s “unusual pro-criminal defendant summary reversal in the Double Jeopardy case” Martinez v. Illinois and suggests that the case “shouldn’t have been resolved summarily.”
  • At Federal  Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck predicts that the Court will grant review in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, a case that was before the Justices at last Thursday’s Conference.
  • At Lawfare, Ingrid Wuerth discusses last week’s opinion in Bond v. United States and explains that, “[a]s a statutory interpretation case,” it is especially notable in two ways: for using ordinary principles of statutory interpretation in a treaty implementation case and for the lack of interpretive deference afforded the Executive Branch.”

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]  Thank you!

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 9, 2014, 7:12 AM),