Thursday round-up
on Feb 5, 2015 at 6:49 am
Briefly:
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse argues that if the Court rules in favor of the challengers in the Affordable Care Act case King v. Burwell, it will “have a great deal of explaining to do — not to me, but to history.”
- In the Chicago Tribune, Melissa Harris reports on an appearance at the University of Chicago by Justice Elena Kagan, who discussed – among other things – representation of criminal defendants at the Court and hunting.
- At the blog of the International City/County Management Association, Lisa Soronen discusses last month’s decision in M&G Polymers v. Tackett, arguing that although “arbitrators and courts interpreting public sector contracts are not obligated to follow the Court’s decision in this case, it will likely be persuasive, if not binding, authority.”
- In The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall reports on the latest developments in the case of Bobby Chen, whose case the Court granted last year and then dismissed last month after Chen failed to file his opening brief on the merits.
- At Mirror of Justice, Kevin Walsh proposes that Congress enact “mandatory appellate jurisdiction over a set of cases” to “deprive the Supreme Court of discretion to decline to decide that set of cases” and “thereby would curtail the Justices’ exercise of one their most potent powers for pursuing a particular program of constitutional change, namely their agenda-setting authority.”
- At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re considers the Court’s treatment of newly raised issues and concludes that, “in traditional disputes, waiver and forfeiture rules are most stringently enforced. But in cases that declare widely applicable legal rules, additional factors come into play.”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, filed an amicus brief in support of neither party in M&G Polymers. 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] scotusblog.com.
