Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the Court issued orders from its November 14 Conference.  It added one new argument to its docket for the Term by granting review in, and immediately consolidating, two cases involving bankruptcy and “underwater” mortgages:  Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona.  Lyle Denniston covered yesterday’s orders for this blog; other coverage comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.   


  • Richard Re of Re’s Judicata has the second part of his discussion of the relationship between circuit precedent and qualified immunity in the wake of last week’s summary reversal in Carroll v. Carman.
  • At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf dissects Justice Clarence Thomas’s statement respecting last week’s denial of a stay application in Maricopa County v. Lopez-Venezuela, in which he criticized the Court’s failure to grant review of cases invalidating state statutes – such as the decisions striking down five states’ bans on same-sex marriage.
  • Writing for The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro reports that “[t]he impending rise of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may bring new momentum to the long-running campaign to broadcast U.S. Supreme Court proceedings.”
  • First Impressions, the Michigan Law Review’s online forum, is hosting a symposium to mark the tenth anniversary of the Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, holding that prosecutors violated the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause when they played an audio recording of a woman’s statement to police at her husband’s trial for stabbing her.
  • Over the weekend MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry discussed the Alabama redistricting cases and King v. Burwell in segments that including Janai Nelson of the NAACP LDF and yours truly.
  • At the Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog, Adam Steinman analyzes last week’s per curiam decision in Johnson v. City of Shelby, a case in which the plaintiffs had not specifically invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their complaint. Steinman concludes that the decision is “a short-but-sweet per curiam opinion that not only gets the right result on the primary issue presented, but also reflects a more sensible approach to pleading generally.”

 [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]

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 18, 2014, 5:42 AM),