Thursday round-up
on Oct 29, 2015 at 6:07 am
The November sitting begins next Monday, November 2. In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews the second case that day: Spokeo v. Robins, in which the Court will consider whether a Virginia man can maintain his lawsuit against the Internet database that, he alleges, published inaccurate information about him in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Commentary on the case comes from Erwin Chemerinsky, who at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights urges the Court to “reaffirm that Congress, by statute, can create rights, albeit rights that otherwise would not exist, and the infringement of these rights is a sufficient injury for standing.”
Briefly:
- Matthew Watkins of the Texas Tribune covers the university’s filing of its brief on the merits in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court will once again review the school’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process.
- At LAWnLinguistics, Neal Goldfarb discusses the brief that he filed in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, regarding the “meaning of the construction because of X”; he argues that “a case will come up where the but-for interpretation makes no sense, or leads to a terrible result, and it will be interesting to see what happens then.”
- At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser reviews Notorious RBG, suggesting that the book “does more than chronicle one woman’s life, it chronicles a time when Americans slayed dragons.”
- In a podcast at Supreme Court Briefing, Richard Orman looks back at the Japanese internment cases.
- At the Guarini Center, Matthew Christiansen discusses the Court’s recent grant in Hughes v. PPL EnergyPlus and CPV Maryland v. PPL EnergyPlus and the prospect that “the decision to grant PPL might indicate that the Court has sided with FERC in” another energy case argued a few days before, “but is concerned about the potential reach of that decision.”
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.
