Writing for this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on a recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit striking down (in part) Texas’s voter ID law, observing that the case “or one of the others is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.”  Chris Kieser analyzes the case at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, where he notes that – whether Texas asks for rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit or asks the Court to review the decision – “this is likely to be the most important Voting Rights Act case since Shelby County [v. Holder].”

Ian Smith weighs in on Evenwel v. Abbott, the “one person, one vote” case in which the Court will hear oral arguments in the upcoming Term, in two separate posts.  At National Review, he argues that the case “looks as if it could transform the political layout of the country,” while in the Daily Caller he contends that, “[g]iven the historical context, granting representation rights to illegal aliens should be treated as an absurdity.” 


  • In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses Foster v. Chatman, in which the Court will hear oral argument in the fall, and argues that, although there “clearly aren’t five votes on the Supreme Court to abolish peremptory challenges,” “their continued existence threatens to erode even further the public’s confidence in the fairness of the judicial system.”
  • On Saturday at 6 p.m., C-SPAN Radio kicks off its series on the Court and the movies by airing the 2004 arguments in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the case at issue in the recent movie Woman in Gold.
  • At ars technica, David Kravets reports on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that “a probable-cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment is required for the police to obtain a suspect’s cell-site data”; he notes that the decision “gives the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the issue, ammunition to resolve a modern-day privacy controversy affecting the tens of millions of American mobile phone users.”
  • At ACSblog, Joshua Douglas argues that, that, “particularly given recent Supreme Court rulings and the now-reduced force of the Voting Rights Act, the answer of how best to protect the right to vote lies with state constitutions and state courts.”

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 when we come back, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 7, 2015, 2:05 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/08/friday-round-up-282/