Yesterday morning the Court issued its final three opinions of the Term. Mark Walsh provided us with a “view” of the proceedings from the Courtroom, while Ilya Shapiro weighs in on the decisions at Cato at Liberty.
In Glossip v. Gross, the Court rejected a challenge to Oklahoma’s use of a sedative normally used to treat anxiety as the first drug in its three-drug lethal injection cocktail. I covered the decision in Plain English, with other coverage coming from Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via YourWestValley.com) and Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News. Commentary comes from our online symposium on the decision, Eric Berger at CNN, Michael Meltsner and Martha Davis at the Human Rights at Home Blog, John Donahue at the Stanford Lawyer, Hadar Aviram at PrawfsBlawg and California Correctional Crisis, Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Corinna Lain at PrawfsBlawg, Aaron Caplan at PrawfsBlawg, and Josh Lee at casetext.
In Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court rejected the state legislature’s argument that the Constitution’s Elections Clause prohibits voters from transferring power over federal congressional redistricting to an independent commission. Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via Tucson.com) and Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg Politics. Commentary comes from Nathaniel Persily at the Stanford Lawyer, Rick Hasen at Slate (who also notes an error in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court at his Election Law Blog), Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Seth Davis at PrawfsBlawg, and Derek Muller at Excess of Democracy.
In Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court held that, when deciding whether to regulate emissions from power plants, the EPA must consider the costs to the power plants up front. Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire and Tony Mauro of the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required). Commentary comes from Leland Beck at the Federal Regulations Advisor, Lisa Heinzerling at ACSblog, Rebecca Leber in the New Republic, Patrick Michaels and Andrew Grossman at Cato at Liberty, Todd Gaziano at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, and Ann Carlson at LegalPlanet.
The Court also issued orders from its Conference last week, adding five new cases to its docket for next Term. Lyle Denniston covered yesterday’s orders for this blog. The Court granted review in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the renewed challenge to the university’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process; coverage comes from Mark Walsh for Education Week’s School Law Blog and Tony Mauro of the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), with commentary from Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog. In a post at The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley weighs in on yesterday’s grant in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, describing it as “a case with significant implications for the states’ authority over the health-care sector.” And Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reports on the Court’s denial of review in the case of an Arizona congressman convicted of (among other things) extortion and fraud and in a case brought by Kansas and Arizona, which had sought to be able to require proof of citizenship from potential voters who wanted to register using a federal voter registration form.
Friday’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition thereof, drew coverage and analysis from David Savage for the Los Angeles Times and Sahil Kapur at Bloomberg Politics. Commentary comes from Leslie Griffin at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, James Gottry at The Hill, Thomas Berg at America, Gregory Lipper at casetext, Zac Bears at The Double Standard, David Fontana at Slate, Jessica Mason Pieklo at RH Reality Check, Robert Tuttle and Ira Lupu at Cornerstone, Elizabeth Wydra at Reuters, Paul Horwitz and Howard Wasserman (in three posts) at PrawfsBlawg, and Ian Millhiser at Think Progress. And Raymond Braun documents the scene outside the Court on Friday in a video.
Other coverage and commentary focus on Thursday’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. Coverage comes from Sahil Kapur and David Weigel, who at Bloomberg Politics report on anger directed by conservatives at Chief Justice John Roberts, while in another post at Bloomberg Politics Kapur highlights some of the key passages of the ruling. Commentary comes from Syd Gernstein at Bloomberg BNA and JV DeLong at Forbes.
Still other coverage focuses on the October Term 2014 more generally. In the New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan looks at the role of the Chief Justice, this Term’s major decisions, and the Court more broadly, while Kenneth Jost has an overview of the Term at Jost on Justice and Bill Blum has five “takeaways” from the Term at truthdig.
Yesterday the Court also issued an order in a challenge by religious colleges and non-profits to the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate. The order barred the federal government from enforcing the mandate against the groups as long as they comply with certain requirements; women who work for the colleges and non-profits will still have access to birth control, at no cost to the groups. Lyle Denniston covered the order for this blog, with other coverage coming from Robert Pear of The New York Times.
- At Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reports that the Court’s recent decisions on same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act have “some Republican presidential candidates waging war against the Supreme Court.”
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.