on Mar 5, 2015 at 8:28 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on a marketplace created by the federal government. Andrew Hamm rounded up early coverage and commentary for this blog. Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Marcia Coyle at both The National Law Journal (subscription required) and PBS NewsHour (video), Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, who looks at the role of Justice Anthony Kennedy and at a proposal floated by Justice Samuel Alito, and Connie Cass of the Associated Press (via the Montana Standard). At ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winner in yesterday’s oral arguments based on the number of questions for each side, while Oliver Roeder makes predictions at FiveThirtyEight.com. Before the oral argument, Sahil Kapur looked at the potentially pivotal role of Chief Justice John Roberts at Talking Points Memo.
Commentary on yesterday’s oral argument comes from Nicholas Bagley at The Incidental Economist, Jeremy Leaming at ACSblog, and Nicole Huberfeld at HealthLawProf Blog. In his columns for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses the Chief Justice and the coercion argument, the government and the standing issue, and statutory interpretation questions.
On Tuesday, the Court issued its decision in the Tax Injunction Act case Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. Coverage of that opinion comes from this blog’s Ronald Mann, with commentary from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.
On Tuesday the Court also heard oral arguments in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which it is considering a challenge to the constitutionality of a Los Angeles ordinance that allows police to review a hotel’s guest register without needing either consent or a warrant. Rory Little covered the argument for this blog; Leslie Shoebotham weighs in at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights. And at ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners in Tuesday’s arguments based on the number of questions for each side.
- The Cato Institute discusses its recent amicus brief in support of cert. in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a challenge to compulsory union dues.
[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.]
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.