Breaking News

Wednesday round-up


  • In a story for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on some of the highlights of Ted Cruz’s comments about the Court and its members in his new autobiography.
  • In another story for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Mauro reports that last night the Court “turned away a full-scale challenge to capital punishment in the case of a convicted murderer in Missouri set for execution at 6 p.m.”
  • In his column for The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at Justice Clarence Thomas, who will soon begin his twenty-fifth year on the Court, and suggests that Thomas has “always marched to the beat of his own conservative drum, and lately the rhythms of that drum have become more distinct.”
  • In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky argues that the “tone” in Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent opinions “is setting a terrible example for young lawyers.”
  • In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that, with its victory in Obergefell v. Hodges, the “next act” for the advocacy group Freedom to Marry will be “going out of business.”
  • The American Bar Association recently hosted a teleforum on the Court’s decision in King v. Burwell and the Chevron
  • At casetext, Michael Foreman describes the Court’s recent decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project as “a significant victory for those who seek to prevent housing discrimination in all its forms,” but he cautions that it also “provides an avenue to try to escape liability by allowing arguments for a very low burden to justify the use of discriminatory policies.”
  • At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro urges the Court to grant review in a Wisconsin case involving an aide to Governor Scott Walker so that it can “articulate meaningful requirements for specificity and reasonableness for electronic search warrants.”
  • At the American College of Environmental Lawyers, Renee Cipriano characterizes the Court’s recent decision in Michigan v. EPA as one that “raises more questions than it answers,” while in a separate post Leslie Carothers observes that, despite the decision, “commentators on both sides of the issues agree that major benefits of the regulation will not be lost.”

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. 15, 2015, 8:38 AM),