Yesterday the Court heard the final two oral arguments of the week, in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk and Warger v. Shauers. In the former case, the Justices are considering whether employees must be paid for time spent in security screenings; in the latter, the question is whether federal evidentiary rules allow a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty. Lyle Denniston covered the former argument for this blog, with other coverage coming from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief (subscription or registration required), and E. Tammy Kim at Al Jazeera; commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View and Daniel Fisher at Forbes. At ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners in both arguments based on the questioning.
Outside the courtroom, it was a busy day as well. First, as Lyle Denniston reported for this blog, Justice Anthony Kennedy delayed same-sex marriages in Idaho, staying the implementation of Tuesday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down that state’s ban. He then later issued a revised order which clarified that the stay did not apply to Nevada, where state officials are no longer defending their own ban. Garrett Epps weighs in on the procedural questions at The Atlantic, while Ruthann Robson discusses the orders at Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
Second, later in the day the Court (over a dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) allowed new voting restrictions to go into effect in North Carolina pending an appeal of lower-court decisions striking down those limits. Lyle Denniston covered the order for this blog, with other coverage coming from Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog. Meanwhile, at his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen covers the latest filing at the Court by the challengers to Wisconsin’s voter ID laws.
Commentary on Tuesday’s oral argument in the prison beard case Holt v. Hobbs also continued in The Economist (registration or subscription required), with a column by Steven Mazie, and in a post at ACSblog from Alex Luchenitser, At ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners of the oral arguments in Holt and Dart Cherokee based on the number of questions for each advocate.
At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie discusses Monday’s orders denying review of seven petitions arising out of challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. And in an op-ed for USA Today, Tony Mauro weighs in on the Court’s decision not to hear the cases.
- Oyez unveils a detailed analysis on the Roberts Court and the Fourth Amendment.
- At his eponymous blog, Ed Mannino discusses last week’s grant in Texas Department of Housing and Community Development v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court will once again consider whether there is a cause of action based on disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act.
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.