Briefly:

  • In the Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on the controversy over recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is “coming under criticism for recent comments she made about a Texas abortion law whose constitutionality could ultimately be decided by the high court.”
  • In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick interviews Erwin Chemerinsky about his new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court.
  • With Chief Justice John Roberts about to begin his tenth Term at the Court, Linda Greenhouse devotes her column for The New York Times to considering “the future: the next nine years. What kind of Supreme Court will John Roberts find himself presiding over, and how will he respond to what is highly likely to be a change, in one direction or the other, from the knife edge on which his current majority rests?”
  • At Notice and Comment, the blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation, Jeff Pojanowski previews the regulatory case Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, in which (along with Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association); he writes that the cases “present a High Noon of sorts in admin law circles. At one end of the street stands the formidable D.C. Circuit alongside the Fifth Circuit; at the other end stand six other circuits and a large posse of administrative law scholars, 72 of whom have filed an amicus brief against the desperados on the D.C. Circuit.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Damien Schiff discusses the petition for certiorari that the group recently filed in Stewart and Jasper Orchards v. Jewell, asking the Court “to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the legality of the San Joaquin Valley/Southern California water cutbacks imposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on account of the Delta delta, a small fish protected under the Endangered Species Act.”
  • At Reason.com, Damon Root has an in-depth look at the Supreme Court litigation over the fate of the internet-TV start-up Aereo.
  • In a post at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, David Gans criticizes the federalism arguments made in two states’ petitions for review of lower-court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage.
  • At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses the concept of third-party standing after the Court’s decision last Term in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components.
  • At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci Hamilton previews next week’s argument in Holt v. Hobbs, in which the Court will consider whether an Arkansas prison policy that bans a Muslim inmate from growing a half-inch beard violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

[Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents other pettioners in the Stewart and Jasper Orchards case.]

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. 

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 2, 2014, 7:29 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/thursday-round-up-246/