It was a quieter day at the Court yesterday, where the Justices heard oral argument in two cases.  In Holt v. Hobbs, they were considering whether an Arkansas prison policy that prohibits a Muslim inmate from growing a half-inch beard violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Lyle Denniston covered the argument for this blog, while I did the same in Plain English.  Other coverage of the oral argument comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR and Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief (registration or subscription required).  Commentary comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Michael Bobelian at Forbes, and Marci Hamilton at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.  

In the second case argued yesterday, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the Justices are considering whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court must include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal.  Archis Parasharami weighs in on the oral argument at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense, while Noah Feldman discusses the case at Bloomberg View and Richard Re does the same at Re’s Judicata.

Still other Court-related coverage and commentary focused on Monday’s announcement that the Court would not review seven petitions arising out of challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  This blog’s symposium on the orders continued with posts from Scott Michelman, William Eskridge, Robin Wilson, Dale Carpenter, and John Neiman.  In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin considers the significance of the denials, while at the Ogletree Deakins blog Nonnie Shivers has the “key takeaways” from the orders.  Judith Schaeffer weighs in with an op-ed for USA Today; Dale Carpenter does the same in a post at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Commentary on Monday’s oral argument in the Fourth Amendment case Heien v. North Carolina also continues at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, where Leslie Shoebotham has a detailed analysis; Daniel Hensel weighs in at Article 8.

Briefly:

  • At AL.com, Brian Lawson discusses Monday’s denial of review in Lynch v. Alabama, in which the Court had been asked to consider “a case brought on behalf of families of poor Alabama schoolchildren who argued the state’s property tax system is unjust and should be remade.”
  • At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen covers the latest developments (or lack thereof) in the North Carolina and Wisconsin voting cases.
  • In a column for The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief (registration or subscription required), Gabe Roth criticizes the Court’s unwillingness to allow its oral arguments to be televised.
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Joshua Thompson discusses the recent revelation in Joan Biskupic’s new book that the Court was initially split five to three in the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, but a proposed dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor led to a revised opinion that garnered a vote of seven to one.
  • At the Coats & Bennett Intellectual Property Law Blog, James Lawrence discusses Monday’s call for the views of the Solicitor General in Athena Cosmetics v. Allergan, Inc.
  • David Hammer of WWLTV.com reports on the amicus briefs filed by (among others) local chambers of commerce in the BP oil spill case.
  • At RH Reality Check, Jessica Mason Pieklo lists six cases to watch for the new Term.

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, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 8, 2014, 9:29 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/wednesday-round-up-243/