Coverage of and commentary on this week’s oral argument in the immigration case Mellouli v. Holder continue to pour in.  The Associated Press (via The New York Times) reports that the Justices “sounded almost incredulous that the Obama administration deported” Moones Mellouli for his conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia – a “sock that contained four pills of the stimulant Adderall.”  Other coverage comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.  Commentary comes from Fatma Marouf, who at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights observes that “[t]here is much at stake here, not just for immigrants but also for criminal defense attorneys,” and from Alisa Wellek at the Huffington Post, who contends that the case “reflects the tragic absurdity of both the War on Drugs and the mass deportation machine that relies on it.” 

Next week the Court will hear oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which it will consider whether the Fair Housing Act allows lawsuits based on disparate impact.  At the WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp contends that, despite assertions to the contrary from supporters of disparate impact, “an examination of the federal appeals court decisions cited by the Solicitor General and other disparate-impact claims proponents indicates that lower courts’ endorsement of such claims has been anything but uniform.”  And at the National Review’s Bench Memos blog, Roger Clegg urges the Court to rule in favor of the state.

Over the dissent of four Justices, the Court last night declined to block the execution of Oklahoma death-row inmate Charles Warner, whose original execution date had been postponed following the botched execution of another inmate in April.  Lyle Denniston reported on the Court’s order for this blog, with other coverage of the order and execution coming from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal.

Briefly:

  • At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re discusses why and how some cases – such as Bond v. United States and Zivotofsky v. Kerry — become “repeaters” at the Court.
  • The Vanderbilt Law Review’s En Banc Roundtable is hosting a symposium in anticipation of next week’s oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, in which the Court will consider whether a rule that prohibits candidates for judgeships from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.
  • At his new eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports on yesterday’s decision by a federal judge in Michigan shielding the marriages of approximately three hundred same-sex couples who married there last year.
  • At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Randal Morrison weighs in on Monday’s oral arguments in the sign-regulation case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, noting that, although “[s]ome popular media have portrayed the case as involving religious discrimination,” that “angle misses the main issue of the case, which is the precise meaning of ‘content neutrality.’”
  • In the San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected San Jose’s challenge to Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption; the city has announced that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

 

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.

Posted in Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 16, 2015, 7:53 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/friday-round-up-253/