Good morning! Today the Court begins its February sitting, starting with orders at 9:30 a.m. and oral arguments at 10. First up is the immigration case Kerry v. Din, in which the Court will consider whether a U.S. citizen has a right to judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of her husband’s visa application. Kevin Johnson previewed the case for this blog, while Chuck Roth weighs in on the case in a post at ImmigrationProf Blog. That oral argument will be followed by oral arguments in Coleman v. Tollefson, in which the Court is considering when a prisoner’s lawsuit becomes a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. Steve Vladeck previewed the case for this blog.
Last week Howard Shipley filed his response to the Court’s order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned, presumably for his role in filing a cert. petition that was denied in early December. Lyle Denniston covered last week’s filing for this blog, while How Appealing’s Howard Bashman has a two-part analysis (here and here) of the issues and potential outcomes in the proceeding.
Next week the Court will hear oral arguments in the most highly anticipated case of the sitting: King v. Burwell, in which the Court will consider whether tax subsidies are available to individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange established by the federal government. At Talking Points Memo, Sahil Kapur discusses Republican efforts to formulate a contingency plan for health care reform in the hope of persuading Chief Justice John Roberts to rule for the challengers. Steve Peoples of the Associated Press (via Talking Points Memo) reports that “one thing was clear this weekend as the nation’s governors gathered in Washington: Many of the states that could be affected are not prepared for the potential fallout.” In The Washington Post, Reid Wilson reports that “[g]overnors in states across the country have begun pressuring Congressional leaders and making contingency plans in case” the Court rules for the challengers. And at truthdig, Bill Blum suggests that the case “is but a single component of a larger corporate crusade to remake American law and government, dedicated to promoting business interests and prerogatives under the guise of individual liberty.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continues her recent spate of interviews, this time with Gail Collins of The New York Times. But, at his eponymous blog, Kenneth Jost criticizes both Ginsburg’s newfound celebrity and some of her recent comments in these appearances.
- At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Leslie Griffin argues that the Court’s 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC, holding that a schoolteacher who was not rehired after sick leave could not sue the religious school where she had worked because she was also a minister, “continues to wreak havoc on Catholic schoolteachers” in San Francisco.
- In The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin previews this week’s oral argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, in which the Court will consider whether the retailer discriminated against a Muslim teenager when it refused to hire her because she wore a headscarf.
- In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Stephanopoulos looks at the effect that the Court’s decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission could have on California’s independent redistricting regime.
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.