on Jun 17, 2015 at 9:42 am
Coverage of and commentary on Monday’s decisions continue. In Kerry v. Din, a majority of the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’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. Elizabeth Keyes kicks off an online symposium on the case at Immigration Law Prof Blog, while another post looks at this Term’s immigration cases more broadly; the blog also links to a U.S. Law Week article focusing on the significance of the case for same-sex marriage.
In an op-ed for The National Law Journal (subscription required), Susannah Pollvogt argues that, because “of the confusion and (largely fabricated) political volatility surrounding the doctrine of animus, I do not think that the court will rely on it in its decision in” the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage,” while at Slate Chanakya Sethi argues that the Court could achieve a “win-win-win” by ruling “only that heightened scrutiny should have been applied and then send[ing] the case back to the lower court to determine whether banning gay marriage survives under that standard.”
- At Transport Topics, Eric Miller reports that on Monday the Court “declined to hear an appeal brought by a Volvo Group subsidiary over a $72 million fine issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
- At IMLA’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses last week’s grant in Luis v. United States, in which the Court is considering “whether not allowing a criminal defendant to use assets not traceable to a criminal offense to hire counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel,” and its relevance for state and local governments.
- At Wisconsin Appellate Law, Eric Pearson considers what Justice Thomas’s decision for the Court 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, might portend for the Court’s eventual decision in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of subsidies under 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.