Yesterday the Supreme Court issued the first set of orders from its September 29 Conference, adding eleven new cases to its docket.  Lyle Denniston covered those orders for this blog.  At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Brianne Gorod continues the blog’s series on the Roberts Court with a post on what some of yesterday’s grants may tell us about the Court.  And at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie looks at some of yesterday’s grants.  (In an earlier post, Mazie also looked ahead at the upcoming Term.)

The highest-profile case on yesterday’s order list may be Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which the Justices will consider whether the Constitution prohibits a state from delegating the federal redistricting process to an independent commission.  Other coverage of the redistricting grant comes from Howard Fischer for the Arizona Capitol Times, while commentary comes from Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress and Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog.

Other new cases included Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court will once again consider whether the Fair Housing Act allows a cause of action based on disparate impact.  Commentary comes from Nicole Flatow at ThinkProgress.

At Education Week’s School Law Blog (registration may be required), Mark Walsh covers the grant in Ohio v. Clark, in which the Court will consider whether the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause permits the use of out-of-court statements by a child about abuse in a criminal trial.

Commentary on Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, in which the Court will consider whether a prohibition on personal solicitations of campaign funds by candidates for judicial office violates the First Amendment, comes from Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog and Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

At PrawfsBlawg, Steve Vladeck weighs in on the grant in Armstong v. Exceptional Child Center, in which the Court will consider whether Medicaid providers have a private right of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce a federal statute against a state.

In his column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses yesterday’s grant in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, in which the Court will consider a Muslim teenager’s claim that the retail clothing chain declined to hire her because she wears a headscarf.

Other coverage of the Court’s order list yesterday focused on the cases on which the Court did not act – specifically the seven petitions arising out of challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  Lyle Denniston had a post for this blog.

Yesterday was also a busy day at the Court for election law challenges, with advocacy groups filing a voter ID challenge from Wisconsin and officials in North Carolina asking the Court to step into a dispute there.  Lyle Denniston covered the filings for this blog; Rick Hasen has posts at his Election Law Blog on the filings here (North Carolina) and here (Wisconsin).

Briefly:

  • At The New York Review of Books, retired Justice John Paul Stevens reviews Judging Statutes, a new book by Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • At Truthdig, Bill Blum criticizes what he describes as “the corporate Court.”
  • At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re continues his posts on last Term’s decision in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, this time with a focus on generalized grievances.
  • At his eponymous blog, Luke Rioux previews next week’s argument in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Court will consider whether a police officer’s mistake about the law can provide the individualized suspicion needed to justify a traffic stop.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2014, 10:15 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/friday-round-up-240/