Breaking News

Friday round-up

Commentary on last week’s arguments in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins continues.  At Defining Ideas, Richard Epstein contends that the case illustrates “the importance of common law,” and he suggests that last week’s oral arguments in the case “revealed much confusion about common law principles.”  And in The Economist, Steven Mazie concludes that the Justices “seemed divided about how to resolve” the case. 


  • In The Weekly Standard, Adam White looks back at the first ten years of the Roberts Court and concludes that if you look at the Chief Justice’s opinions, speeches, and remarks at his confirmation hearings, “a handful of common themes emerge” that “do seem to highlight at least some of the themes that Roberts has grappled with throughout his career and are stated best not as answers but as questions: What is the federal government’s role in America? What is the Supreme Court’s role in the federal government? And what is the chief justice’s role on the Supreme Court?”
  • In commentary at CNS News, Lynn Wardle discusses (and criticizes) comments by Justice Anthony Kennedy suggesting that Kim Davis should resign.
  • In a podcast at Constitution Daily, Rick Hasen and Ilya Shapiro look ahead to next month’s arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott, the “one person, one vote” case.
  • At the Brennan Center for Justice, Andrew Cohen discusses Louisiana inmate Albert Woodfox, who will soon ask the Court to take on his case; he suggests that Woodfox’s “case has meant many things to many different people in the 40-plus years in which it has circulated through our justice systems. We ought to know soon what it, and the fight against solitary confinement, really mean to Justice Kennedy.”
  • In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage and Timothy Phelps analyze the Obama administration’s announcement that it will ask the Court to weigh in on the challenge to the executive order on immigration; they suggest that the administration “may face an uphill fight in the high court, where some justices have voiced skepticism over Obama’s bold use of executive authority.”
  • At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Angela Morrison discusses this week’s oral arguments in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, asserting that even if the case does not prove to be a blockbuster, the outcome will still be significant for low-wage workers.
  • At casetext, Colin Starger discusses Monday’s per curiam decision in Mullenix v. Luna, observing that although Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s argument in her dissenting opinion is “powerfully stated, it suffers from a fatal flaw”: “The Court’s car chase cases have uniformly sanctioned the use of deadly force.”
  • At Employee Benefit Adviser, Nancy Ross and co-authors discuss Monday’s oral argument in the ERISA case Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, concluding that although the arguments “did not indicate how the case is likely to be resolved,” the Court “did appear concerned about preserving some avenue through which plans can recover excess payments from undeserving participants.”

If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) news 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, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 13, 2015, 6:48 AM),