Tuesday round-up

Briefly:

• Writing for his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports on a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that “could set up a new attempt by [tobacco] companies to get Supreme Court protection for what they say against themselves in their own promotional messages.”
• Writing for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on recent comments by presidential candidates (and criticism of those comments) suggesting that they might impose a “litmus test” for potential Supreme Court nominees.
• At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley explains why “the biggest beneficiary of a win for Texas” in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court is considering whether a cause of action based on disparate impact is available under the Fair Housing Act, “could well be Wall Street.”
• At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen analyzes last week’s decision in Comptroller v. Wynne, holding that Maryland’s personal income tax scheme violates the Constitution.
• Writing for his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen reports that members of Congress have introduced a new bill intended to “blunt the effect” of a possible ruling in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission striking down the use of independent redistricting commissions to draw boundaries for congressional districts.
• At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost discusses the recent referendum to legalize same-sex marriage in Ireland and contends that, as “[p]olls in the United States show . . . ‘a broad national consensus’ in favor of marriage equality,” the Supreme Court “can stand in the way or it can follow the election returns.”