Monday round-up
The Jerusalem passport case Zivotofsky v. Kerry, argued earlier this month, continues to generate commentary. At The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Kontorovich discusses the significance of the Constitution’s Property Clause, which gives Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” to a possible resolution of the case. And Marty Lederman discusses the same argument at Just Security.
Briefly:
- The Marshall Project has launched its new home page with a story on missed deadlines in capital cases, including Christeson v. Roper, a case scheduled for consideration at the Court’s Conference last week.
- At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost discusses last week’s oral arguments in the Alabama redistricting cases.
- In the New Republic, Dahlia Lithwick argues that the “Court has become worryingly cloistered, even for a famously cloistered institution.”
- At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses the relationship between circuit precedent and qualified immunity in the wake of last week’s summary reversal in Carroll v. Carman.
- At Cato at Liberty, Trevor Burrus and Ilya Shapiro discuss the amicus brief that Cato filed in support of the petition in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, “a putative class action alleging that Verizon failed to compensate 30,000-50,000 property owners for building terminal boxes on their property.”
- In an op-ed at Constitution Daily, Doug Kendall and Brianne Gorod analyze the Sixth Circuit’s recent opinion upholding bans on same-sex marriage (and the recognition of those marriages) in four states; they argue that, although there “are a lot of problems with Judge Sutton’s opinion, . . . one in particular makes clear why his decision can’t stand when the Supreme Court ultimately rules on marriage equality: If Jeff Sutton is right,Loving v. Virginia is wrong.”
- At Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck covers last week’s denial of certiorari in the insider trading case Whitman v. United States, in which Justice Antonin Scalia issued a statement regarding the denial.
- Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via the East Valley Tribune) reports on the brief filed by the independent commission charged with redistricting in Arizona in response to a challenge to the maps drawn by that commission.
[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. And the firm’s Tejinder Singh serves as counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Christeson. 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