on Jun 25, 2014 at 7:05 am
Although the Court is scheduled to issue opinions in argued cases again today, yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the three decisions issued on Monday.
Coverage of the Court’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, in which the Court mostly upheld the agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources, comes from Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire and Daniel Fisher of Forbes. Commentary comes from Simon Lazarus at The New Republic, Justin Pidot at ACSblog, Michael Bobelian of Forbes, Lisa Soronen at the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Doug Kendall and Mei-Wah Lee at Grist, Jonathan Keim at the National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, and the editorial boards of the Tampa Bay Times, The Washington Post, The Arizona Republic, and The Baltimore Sun.
In Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the Court rejected Halliburton’s request that it reverse its decision in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, holding that investors in securities fraud cases do not need to show that they have relied on misleading statements from the company, but it added that defendants must receive an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance before class certification with evidence of a lack of price impact. Coverage of the decision comes from Daniel Fisher of Forbes; at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense blog, commentary comes from Joshua Yount and Archis A. Parasharami and from Andrew Pincus.
- At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses the process by which the Court announces its opinions – a process, he suggests, that “help[s] to define the Court’s distinctive institutional role.”
- At legalfeet, Robin Radner anticipates the Court’s decision in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
- In The Washington Times, Edward Gnehm urges the Court to grant review in Arab Bank v. Linde, a case on tomorrow’s Conference in which the Justices have been asked to weigh in on a U.S. court’s authority to punish a foreign bank that fails to turn over financial records protected by foreign financial secrecy laws.
- In USA Today, Richard Wolf looks back at the “very busy year” that Edith Windsor has had since the Court, in the case bearing her name, struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act which limited “marriage,” for purposes of federal laws and programs, to unions between a man and a woman.
[[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent in Halliburton. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
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!