on Jun 16, 2015 at 7:25 am
Yesterday the Court issued three opinions in argued cases. Mark Walsh provided a “View from the Courtroom” of the proceedings for this blog. In Kerry v. Din, a majority of the Court vacated the lower court’s ruling that a U.S. citizen whose spouse’s application for a visa was denied has a right to judicial review of the denial. Kevin Johnson covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Commentary comes from Ruthann Robson, who at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog discusses the decision’s reference to the Magna Carta (in her first post) and what the decision might mean for the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage (in her second post); and from Noah Feldman, who in his column for Bloomberg View also parses the decision for possible clues as to the Justices’ ultimate positions in the same-sex marriage cases.
In Reyes Mata v. Lynch, the Court ruled that a lower court erred when it held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider an immigrant’s appeal of the denial of his untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Steve Vladeck analyzed the decision for this blog, while Jaclyn Belczyk covered the decision for JURIST,
The Court also issued its decision in Baker Botts v. ASARCO, holding that Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not allow courts to award attorney’s fees for fee applications. Tony Mauro reported on the decision for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), while Devin Montgomery covered the decision for JURIST; Alan Morrison analyzed the decision for the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket.
The Court also issued orders from last week’s Conference. Lyle covered the orders for this blog generally. Devin Montgomery covered the newly granted cases for JURIST, while Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST covered the Court’s order in a challenge to a North Carolina law that would have required women seeking an abortion to first undergo a narrated ultrasound; the Court let stand a lower court ruling blocking the law from going into effect. And at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger comments on Justice Ginsburg’s statement concurring in the Court’s denial in Hittson v. Chatman, a habeas case involving the “look through” rule; Richard Re does the same at PrawfsBlawg. The Justices did not act on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the university’s use of affirmative action in its undergraduate admissions process; Ralph Haurwitz reports on the case for the Austin American-Statesman.
At the Maryland Appellate Blog, Steve Klepper suggests “three reasons” why Chief Justice John Roberts “might vote with the majority and assign the opinion to himself” in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. And at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci Hamilton outlines some of the possible paths that states could take with regard to religious objections to same-sex marriage if the Court were to strike down the state bans.
- Writing for the National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that this week marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of when the Court “went online.”
- And in the Legal Times (subscription or registration required), Mauro reports on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks on Saturday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society, where she described her newfound status as an icon as “amazing.”
- Saqib Iqbal Ahmed and Sinead Carew of Reuters report that investors “are betting that the healthcare sector’s strong run will not be held back for long even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act.”
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.