Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

Happy (almost) Thanksgiving!  We’re grateful for all of our readers (especially when you send us links for the round-up).  Today is the last round-up for the week; we will be back again on Monday before orders at 9:30. 


  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger responds to my Plain English preview of Elonis v. United States, in which the Court will consider whether a Pennsylvania man can be held criminally liable for his statements on Facebook. He contends that “[t]he definition of a prohibited threat should not vary with the medium.  The fact that people rant all the time on the internet does not warrant extending First Amendment protection when rant crosses the line to threats.”
  • At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley discusses whether the Court could opt to stay King v. Burwell, in which it granted cert. earlier this month to consider whether tax subsidies are available to individuals who purchase their insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government. He concludes that “it would be foolish to bank on a stay. The states have seven months to develop contingency plans before the Supreme Court rules  in King.”
  • At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro and Gabriel Latner discuss the amicus brief that Cato filed in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court will once again consider whether the Fair Housing Act allows lawsuits based on disparate impact; they note that, unlike the two cases that preceded it, “this case is unlikely to settle.”
  • At the Appellate Practice Blog of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, Lisa Soronen discusses the amicus brief filed by IMLA and the State and Local Legal Center in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the town’s sign codes.
  • Lisa Keen of the Keen News Services reviews the state of play for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage, as well as how the Court might rule on those challenges.
  • At Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck previews next week’s oral argument in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, in which the Court will consider whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly change an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
  • In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews next week’s oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, in which the Court will consider whether and to what extent the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to provide their pregnant employees with the same accommodations that it provides to employees who are not pregnant.

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, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 26, 2014, 8:16 AM),