Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, in which it considered whether bankruptcy courts can void a second mortgage when the first mortgage is underwater.  I covered the oral argument for this blog; other coverage comes from Daniel Fisher of Forbes. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.  And at ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winner of the case based on the number of questions at oral arguments.

Today’s oral argument in the challenge to an EPA rule that restricts the release of mercury and other pollutants from power plants has drawn a great deal of coverage and commentary.  Lyle Denniston previewed the oral argument for this blog, with other coverage coming from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg Business, and Richard Wolf of USA Today.  Commentary comes from Brian Potts at The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Rebecca Leber in the New Republic, and Tom Donnelly at Grist.

The Court also issued two decisions in argued cases yesterday.  In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, the Justices vacated the decision of the Sixth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings, holding that when a company makes statements of opinion in its securities filings, those statements are considered untrue for purposes of securities fraud suits only if they are not sincere, unless the plaintiffs can point to specific facts indicating the company’s officers did know that the statements were false.  Adam Liptak covered the decision for The New York Times, with other coverage coming from Tony Mauro at the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required) and Daniel Fisher of Forbes.  Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.  And at PrawfsBlawg, Adam Steinman analyzes yesterday’s other opinion, in the trademark case B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries.

Other coverage and commentary continue to focus on Monday’s oral arguments in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the challenge to Texas’s specialty license-plate scheme. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, and Leslie Gielow Jacobs at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.

The Court also heard oral argument on Monday in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, in which the Court will consider the duties that the Americans with Disabilities Act imposes on police officers when they deal with people with mental disabilities.  Leslie Shoebotham weighed in on the oral argument at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, with other commentary coming from William Goren at his Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act blog.

On Monday Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified before the House Appropriations Committee on the Court’s budget.  Coverage comes from Mike Sacks at the Blog of Legal Times, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal.

Among Monday’s orders from the Court’s March 20 Conference, the Court denied review in Frank v. Walker, the challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law.  Lyle Denniston weighs in via Yahoo! News.  At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Reed Hopper discusses the denial of review in Kent Recycling v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,


  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog,Wen Fa previews next month’s oral arguments in the Takings Clause case Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Monday’s grant of review in Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court will consider whether its 2012 decision holding that sentences of life without parole for juveniles are unconstitutional applies retroactively.
  • Also at Crime and Consequences, Scheidegger discusses the denial of review in the capital case Bower v. Texas.
  • At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser suggests how the Court could “repeal much of the twentieth century.”
  • In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro highlights an amicus brief filed in the same-sex marriage cases that “hopes to prove that decades of animus and homophobia in federal and state workplaces formed the backdrop for laws banning same-sex marriage.”

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Omnicare.  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]

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 25, 2015, 7:09 AM),