on Apr 1, 2015 at 10:51 am
Yesterday’s decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, in which a divided Court held that Medicaid providers do not have a cause of action to challenge a state’s reimbursement rates, garnered considerable coverage and commentary. William Baude covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal. Commentary comes from Steve Vladeck at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, Nicole Huberfeld at HealthLawProf Blog, and Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.
Other commentary focuses on last week’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, in which the Court sent the case of a female UPS driver who became pregnant back to the lower court for it to reconsider its ruling. Steven Mazie weighs in at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, while Lisa Soronen analyzes the decision at the Appellate Practice Blog of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. And, in light of the Court’s decision in the case, the Pew Research Center reports on data indicating that “Young’s situation of working while pregnant is much more common today than it was before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.”
In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports on yesterday’s oral arguments in the patent case Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, while at ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winners in yesterday’s arguments based on the number of questions for each side.
Earlier this week, the Court heard oral arguments in Brumfield v. Cain, a capital case from Louisiana. Commentary on the case comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences and Mark Joseph Stern at Slate.
- The George Washington Law Review’s new “On the Docket” page features commentary on recent Court decisions, including comments by GW law professors on the Alabama redistricting cases, Young, and B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries.
- At the Huffington Post, Brianne Gorod discusses recent developments in the lower courts on same-sex marriage, arguing that one decision by a district court in Texas is a “good reminder of why a Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to marriage equality is so important.”
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.