Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

Yesterday the Court added five new cases to its docket for next Term.  Lyle Denniston covered the order list for this blog.  The Court’s announcement that it had granted review in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a challenge to compulsory fees for public-sector unions, garnered the most attention.  Lyle Denniston covered the grant for this blog; other coverage comes from Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, while commentary comes from Deborah LaFetra at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog and Moshe Marvit at Talking Points Memo.  Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reports on the Court’s grant in a challenge to the legislative boundaries drawn by Arizona’s independent redistricting commission; Rick Hasen also discusses the grant at his Election Law Blog

Other coverage focuses on Monday’s final three decisions in argued cases.  Nina Totenberg had an overview of all three for NPR.  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.  Coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Chantal Valery and Robert MacPherson of Agence France-Press (via Yahoo! News). Commentary on the decision comes from our symposium on the decision, Josh Lee at casetext, and Rick Wilson at the Human Rights at Home Blog.

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.  I covered the decision in Plain English for this blog; commentary comes from Sean Young at ACSblog.

And 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.  Coverage comes from Jeremy Jacobs of Greenwire and Chantal Valery of Agence France-Press (via Business Insider); commentary comes from Michael Wara in the Stanford Lawyer, Lisa Soronen at the Knowledge Center, Seth Jaffe at Law and the Environment, John Burton at the World Socialist Web Site, and Richard Revesz at The Hill.

Other commentary focuses on Friday’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition thereof.  At the Ogletree Deakins website, Ann Carr Mackey and others focus on the implications of the decision for employee benefits, while at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights Marci Hamilton looks at what the decision will mean for houses of worship and government actions.

Finally, some commentary focuses on the Term and its significance more broadly.  At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Tom Donnelly concludes that the Term was a “good—but not great”—one for business.  In the Los Angeles Times, Rick Hasen urges us to “forget the debate about whether the Supreme Court has taken a liberal run,” arguing that the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy “matter more than anything else.”


  • Coverage of the Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the renewed challenge to the university’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process, comes from Ralph Haurwitz at the Austin American-Statesman.
  • Commentary 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, comes from Rob Weiner at casetext.

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, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 1, 2015, 9:06 AM),