Wednesday round-up

AMY HOWE OCT 14, 2015 6:12 AM

Yesterday’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, dominated coverage of and commentary on the Court.  Our coverage came from Lyle Denniston, while I covered the argument in Plain English for my eponymous blog.  Other coverage comes from Mark Walsh of Education Week’s The School Law Blog (subscription or registration may be required), Greg Stohr of Bloomberg Business, and Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.  Commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, and Asher Steinberg at The Narrowest Grounds. Before the argument, NPR’s Nina Totenberg previewed the case; other previews come from Chris Geidner for BuzzFeed and Asher Steinberg (who focuses on the jurisdictional question) at The Narrowest Grounds, while Katy Reckdahl has an extensive discussion of the case for the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange.  Finally, in an essay for the Stanford Law Review Online, Jason Zarrow and William Milliken contend that the Court “clearly has jurisdiction in Montgomery.”

The Justices also heard oral arguments yesterday in Hurst v. Florida, in which they are considering whether the state’s sentencing scheme for death penalty cases violates either the Sixth or the Eighth Amendment.  Coverage for this blog comes from Lyle Denniston, with other coverage coming from Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.

Briefly:

• At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Missud v. Court of Appeals of California, in which the Court yesterday affirmed the decision of the lower court because it lacked a quorum after five Justices recused themselves.
• In the Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer previews the December argument in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which the Court will consider “the legality of the state’s 30 legislative districts, setting the stage for a ruling that could realign political lines for the 2016 election.”
• At truthdig, Bill Blum reports on a proposed referendum for California voters “asking voters whether they want to amend the federal Constitution to overturn” the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
• In the Washington Blade, Chris Johnson reports that Justice Sonia Sotomayor “officiated on Saturday the same-sex wedding of a couple with history of LGBT advocacy,” making her the third Justice to officiate at a same-sex marriage ceremony.
• At the Fed Soc Blog, James Burnham discusses United States v. Newman, the insider trading case in which the Court recently denied review; he contends that, although the Court’s “decision to deny the Solicitor General’s petition for certiorari makes sense,” “eventually, the Supreme Court will need to grapple with the headless monster that the crime of ‘insider trading’ has become.”

 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.

 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY