on Mar 3, 2015 at 6:36 am
Tomorrow the Court will hear 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. Coverage of the case comes from Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo, Dan Mangan at CNBC, and Liz Goodwin for Yahoo! News. Commentary comes from Marty Lederman at Balkinization, Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, Nicholas Bagley in The New York Times, Robert Schlesinger at U.S. News & World Report, Jonathan Cohn in The Huffington Post, Steven Brill at Reuters, Simon Lazarus at Democracy, Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law, and Anthony Tersigni at The Hill’s Congress Blog. The case will also be the topic of this morning’s Diane Rehm Show (radio); guests will include this blog’s own Amanda Frost.
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which it is considering whether the Constitution prohibits the state’s voters from handing over authority for redistricting to independent commissions. Lyle Denniston provided our primary coverage of the oral argument, while I added a Plain English analysis. Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR (who also previewed the case yesterday). Commentary comes from Noah Feldman of Bloomberg View, Derek Muller at Excess of Democracy, Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog, and Michael Morley in a podcast for the Northwestern University Law Review Online.
Lyle Denniston covered yesterday’s second case, Ohio v. Clark, involving the Confrontation Clause and schools, for this blog; other coverage comes from Mark Walsh in Education Week’s School Law Blog. At ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners in both of yesterday’s arguments based on the number of questions for each side.
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which it will consider 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 previewed the case for this blog. Commentary on the case comes from Ron Fein in the Sacramento Bee.
- At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re weighs in on last week’s decision in Yates v. United States, in which the Court overturned a commercial fisherman’s conviction for violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s anti-shredding provision.
- At Big Think, Steven Mazie discusses last week’s oral argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, predicting that “at least five or six justices seem poised to say that Abercrombie erred in disqualifying a young woman for wearing her religion on her sleeve.”
- In the California Lawyer, Traci Park anticipates the Court’s decision in Elonis v. United States, involving threats made on social media.
- At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Fatima Marouf looks back at last week’s oral argument in the immigration case Kerry v. Din, arguing that allowing judicial review of consular decisions “would play a dual role, providing people access to some form of justice and creating a way to confront flaws in a system designed to protect us from dangerous things.”
[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.