Coverage of and commentary on Wednesday’s oral arguments in the class-action case Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez continue.  Ronald Mann covered the oral argument for this blog, with other coverage coming from Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post, and commentary from Justin Sadowsky at Dubitante.

Other coverage focuses on Wednesday’s oral arguments in a pair of consolidated energy-regulation cases.  Greg Stohr of Bloomberg Politics notes that one Justice participated in the oral argument even though his wife owns stock in a company whose subsidiary is a party to the case; other coverage comes from Robin Bravender of E&E News, who in a separate story with Hannah Northey reports that supporters of the “major energy conservation rule” at issue in the case – “including one of its biggest champions — are nervous about the regulation’s fate in the wake of” Wednesday’s arguments. 

Additional coverage of and commentary on Tuesday’s oral argument in Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court is considering whether its 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to cases that were already final when Miller was decided, come from Steven Mazie for The Economist and Garrett Epps for The Atlantic, who also discusses Tuesday’s argument in Hurst v. Florida, the challenge to Florida’s death-sentencing scheme.  Other commentary on the argument in Hurst comes from Mark Stern at Slate and David Dow at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.  And in a separate column for The Atlantic, Epps also discusses a “death penalty feud” at the Court more broadly.

Briefly:

  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on a “petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week [that] raises a novel challenge to the 65-year-old rule that bars military personnel from suing the government for injuries on the job.”
  • In The Legal Intelligencer, Charles Kelbley previews Spokeo v. Robins, in which the Court will consider standing for a plaintiff who has not suffered any concrete harm; he concludes that the Court “must decide whether the traditional view of Article III standing is the exclusive basis for standing, or whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which does not require injury-in-fact, articulates an alternative basis of standing in statutory rights cases.”
  • In his column for The Atlantic, Garrett Epps previews Sturgeon v. Masica, one of the cases granted from the Long Conference; he describes it as a case about “whether the federal government can keep John Sturgeon, a 75-year-old Alaska outdoorsman, from using his personal hovercraft to stalk the wily moose in the wilds of the Yukon-Charley Rivers National ”
  • At the Maryland Appellate Blog, Michael Wein discusses the summary reversal in Maryland v. Kulbicki, noting “something that doesn’t quite fit with a typical summary reversal opinion”: the Court did not call for the record before issuing its opinion.
  • In a podcast for Dropout Nation, California state senator Gloria Romano discusses “her amicus brief in theFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and why it is time to abolish laws that allow NEA and AFT to forcibly collect dues from teachers.”
  • At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf urges the Court to grant review of the challenges to Texas’s new abortion law and reverse.

Have a good weekend, everyone – we’ll be back on Monday!

 

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.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 16, 2015, 9:08 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/10/friday-round-up-292/