Friday round-up
Last week’s announcement that the Court will review King v. Burwell, presenting the question whether tax subsidies are available to individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government, continues to dominate coverage and commentary. At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse Blog, Richard Samp observes that, if the Court were to agree with the challengers, its decision would “have an impact on the ACA every bit as great as a decision striking down the individual mandate,” but he “emphasize[s] major distinctions between the two cases.” And John Harwood of CNBC contends that, “[b]y accepting a legal challenge based on a poorly drafted passage of the Obamacare statute, the justices have placed themselves in a political vise grip.”
Briefly:
- At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports on the Fifth Circuit’s denial of en banc review in Abigail Fisher’s challenge to the undergraduate admissions policies used by the University of Texas at Austin, and the prospect that the case will return to the Court soon. (Lyle Denniston reported on the Fifth Circuit’s order for this blog.)
- Jefferson Public Radio interviewed author Garrett Epps about his new book, American Justice 2014, on the October Term 2013. (Ronald Collins also interviewed Epps for this blog.)
- At In Progress, Colin Starger analyzes the Court’s recent per curiam opinion in Johnson v. City of Shelby, which in his view “represents the latest chapter in the Court’s recently-controversial doctrine interpreting the requirements for federal pleadings under FRCP 8(a)(2).”
- In The New Yorker, Richard Socarides discusses efforts by supporters of same-sex marriage to take their case to the Court and suggests that Wednesday’s order allowing same-sex marriages in Kansas to go forward “strongly suggests that, even if they have to wait another term, they have made the right calculation, and that, finally, we will not have to wait much longer for justice.”
- At Law 360 (subscription or registration required), Matthew Schettenhelm analyzes Monday’s oral argument in T-Mobile South v. Roswell, focusing on “five questions that will play a key role in how the Court resolves the case.”
- At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Janai Nelson discusses the Alabama redistricting cases, in which the Court heard oral argument last week, and she observes that, “although this case has compelling partisan implications . . . race, which continues to bedevil the Court’s election law jurisprudence, is really at the fore.”
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to one set of petitioners in the Alabama redistricting cases. 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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY