Breaking News

Friday round-up

The Justices return to the bench this morning at ten o’clock to issue opinions for the third time this week.  The Court issued two opinions yesterday, and both of them were big ones.  Kali Borkoski rounded up early coverage of and commentary on Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the Court held that the Fair Housing Act allows claims based on disparate impact – that is, an allegation that a law or policy has a discriminatory effect, even if it wasn’t intended to discriminate.  The blog is also hosting an online symposium on the case.  Other coverage comes from Tony Mauro of the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required) and NPR’s Carrie Johnson. Commentary comes from William Berman and Jamie Langowski at the Human Rights at Home Blog, Seth Davis at PrawfsBlawg, Wencong Fa at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Roger Clegg at the National Review, Walter Olson at Cato at Liberty, and Ed Mannino at his eponymous blog.

Andrew Hamm of this blog rounded up early coverage and commentary on yesterday’s decision in King v. Burwell, in which the Court agreed with the Obama administration that tax subsidies are available under the Affordable Care Act for everyone who purchases health insurance on an exchange, regardless whether the exchange was created by the federal government or a state.  The blog is hosting an online symposium on the case.  In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reported on the atmosphere in the Courtroom when the ruling was issued, while in The Wall Street Journal Jess Bravin investigates what Congress actually meant by the phrase “established by the State.” NPR’s Nina Totenberg covers the decision for Morning Edition (with Mara Liasson and Renee Montagne) and All Things Considered; she also appears in a video with Liasson.  Other coverage comes from Richard Wolf at USA Today (who has another story focusing on the Chief Justice), from Jeremy Jacobs at Greenwire, where he discusses what the Court’s decision might mean for its ruling in the still-pending Clean Air Act cases, and from the Associated Press, which covers consumers’ reactions to the decisions.

Commentary on yesterday’s decision in King comes from Laurence Tribe in The Boston Globe, Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times, Adam Zimmerman at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re at PrawfsBlawg, Jeremy Leaming at ACSblog, Richard Pierce at the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket, Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, Leland Beck at the Federal Regulations Advisor, Lisa Keen of the Keen News Service, Joan Krause at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Michelle Mello, Hank Greely, and David Studdert for the Stanford Lawyer, Steven Mazie for The Economist’s Democracy in America Blog, Neil Kinkopf at ACSblog, Aaron Yelowitz at Cato at Liberty, Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law, and Marty Lederman at Slate’s Breakfast Table series.

Commentary on Monday’s decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which the Court held that a Los Angeles ordinance which allows police to inspect hotel guest registries without advance notice or a warrant is unconstitutional because it does not provide an opportunity for precompliance review, comes from Hadar Aviram at PrawfsBlawg and Robert Weisberg for the Stanford Lawyer.


  • In another post for Slate’s Breakfast Table series, Walter Dellinger looks at Solicitor General Don Verrilli’s Term at the Court, arguing that “this may be the greatest Supreme Court term any solicitor general has ever had.”
  • Writing for The Economist, Steven Mazie weighs in on Horne v. Department of Agriculture, in which the Court held that a raisin marketing program which requires raisin growers to hand over part of their crops to the federal government violates the Constitution.
  • At Natural Resources Today, Hank Lacey anticipates the Court’s decision in Utility Air Group v. EPA, in which the Court is considering when the EPA must consider costs in regulating power plant emissions.
  • Commentary on Glossip v. Gross, the still-pending challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, comes from Corrina Lain in two posts at PrawfsBlawg.
  • In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses “law and symbolism” at the Court and argues that the “majority got it right” with its ruling last week in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  • In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have been asked to recuse themselves from participating in the decision.

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

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 5:39 AM),