on Dec 29, 2014 at 7:15 am
- At PrawfsBlawg, Steve Vladeck discusses the amicus brief that he filed on behalf of former officials of the Department of Health and Human Services in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, in which the Court will consider whether the Supremacy Clause gives Medicaid providers a private right of action to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) against a state when Congress did not create enforceable rights under the statute.
- At the Appellate Practice Blog of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, Lisa Soronen summarizes the amicus brief that the State and Local Legal Center filed in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which the Court will consider whether local governments can require hotels and motels to provide their guest lists to the police.
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse notes that the Court’s announcement that it would grant review in Rasul v. Bush “led to five detainees being spirited away from Guantánamo,” and that “just a dozen or so” were actually released from the prison there “due to the successful exercise of their right to habeas corpus.”
- Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via the East Valley Tribune) discusses Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which has been scheduled for oral argument on March 2.
- In the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss reports that “Justice Antonin Scalia relied on an often-used quotation” earlier this month “when he admitted overlooking an issue in a prior case which led to the appearance of inconsistency.”
- At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro and Gabriel Latner discuss the amicus brief that Cato filed earlier this month in a challenge to tour-guide licensing schemes.
- At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost suggests that, although the Court is “unlikely to be unanimous” if and when it reviews a challenge to state bans on same-sex marriage, “the gay rights ruling that now seems only a matter of time may well strike future generations just as Brown [v. Board of Education] does now as nothing more than ‘simple justice.’”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Patel. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]