Thursday round-up

By Amy Howe
on Feb 26, 2015 at 9:48 am

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, the federal government’s challenge to a retail store’s refusal to hire a Muslim teenager because she wore a headscarf.  Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English.  Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and the BBC News, while at Education Week Mark Walsh looks at the case’s implications for schools.  At Fivethirtyeight.com, Oliver Roeder tries to quantify the possible results in the case.  Commentary on the case comes from Marci Hamilton, who at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights suggests that, “whatever the Court does, employers and employees have good reason to demand clearer guidance from Congress.”   

In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro covers yesterday’s second oral argument, in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO, reporting that the Court was “generally unsympathetic” to the law firm’s “efforts to win a fee award for the cost of defending an earlier bankruptcy fee application.”  And at ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners in both of yesterday’s oral arguments based on the number of questions for each side.

Yesterday’s decision in Yates v. United States, reversing a fisherman’s conviction under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for destroying undersized grouper, garnered significant coverage and commentary.  Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog (with a Plain English explanation at the end); other coverage comes from Tony Mauro for the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Richard Wolf of USA Today, and Jeremy Jacobs of Greenwire.  Commentary on the case, much of which focuses on what the decision may (or may not) mean for the Court’s eventual decision in King v. Burwell, comes from Noah Feldman in his column for Bloomberg View, Kent Scheidegger for Crime and Consequences, Mark Miller at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Todd Haugh in a podcast for the Northwestern University Law Review’s online edition, Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog (Hasen also had a shorter post earlier in the day), Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Brianne Gorod at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, and the blog Arbitrary Aardvark.

The Court also issued a second decision, affirming the Fourth Circuit in the teeth-whitening case North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC.  Our coverage came from Eric Fraser; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR and Richard Wolf of USA Today.

In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews next week’s arguments in King v. Burwell generally, with a focus on the case and education for Education Week.  In another column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses King and the issue of standing – whether the plaintiffs have a legal right to bring the case at all.  Other commentary on King comes from Rob Weiner at ACSblog.

Briefly:

• In Education Week (registration required), Mark Walsh previews next week’s oral argument in the Confrontation Clause case Ohio v. Clark, involving “an important but uneasy duty of teachers: reporting suspected abuse or neglect of their students to the appropriate authorities.”
• At Bloomberg Politics, Arit John looks at the influence (if any) of public opinion on the Justices and what role increasing support for same-sex marriage might play when the Court takes up the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.
• At the Cato Institute’s Legal Briefs, Derek Ho, Ilya Shapiro, and Luke Wake discuss the amicus brief that Cato filed in support of a cert. petition seeking review of an arbitration ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
• Another post at Cato discusses the group’s amicus brief in support of a petition filed by a Vietnam veteran “protest[ing] against [the VA’s] use of a parcel of land deeded to the U.S. government for the care of homeless veterans for purposes other than that purpose.”

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.