Today the Court will hear oral arguments in two cases.  First up is the class action case Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which Lyle Denniston previewed for this blog.  Other coverage comes from Alexander Gray and Michael Levy for Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.

The second case is Luis v. United States, in which the Court will consider whether a court can freeze a criminal defendant’s “untainted” assets when the defendant’s “tainted” assets have been spent or cannot be located.  I previewed the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jenna Howarth and Sonia Gupta of Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.

Finally, Spencer McCandless and Talya Bobick of the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket preview both of today’s cases, along with other cases in the November sitting.

Commentary on Friday’s announcement that the Court will review the challenges by several religious non-profits to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate continues, coming from Garrett Epps of The Atlantic and Ian Millhiser at Think Progress.

Yesterday the Court issued a summary decision in Mullenix v. Luna, vacating the Fifth Circuit’s determination that a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.  Lyle Denniston covered the ruling for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times.  Mark Joseph Stern discusses the decision (and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent) for Slate.

Other commentary focuses on last week’s oral arguments in Foster v. Chatman.  In a post at casetext, Paula Mitchell argues that the “justices’ questions and comments at Monday’s oral argument made clear that Foster’s case is anything but frivolous,” while J. Amy Dillard contends in another post that a “bogus race-neutral explanation will never become a value-neutral judgment about a prospective juror of color unless this Court sets out a new, meaningful Batson rule.”

Briefly:

  • The Election Law Blog hosts a podcast with Nate Persily on the Court and social science evidence in election law cases at the Court.
  • In the National Review, Mark Pulliam discusses Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process.
  • In another post at the Election Law Blog, Rick Pildes looks ahead to next month’s oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott, the “one person, one vote” case, and the possibility that the Court will consider whether states must base districts on equal numbers of people.
  • Also at the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen reports on the Court’s denial of cert. in a challenge to California’s practice of requiring non-profits to disclose the names of their significant donors.
  • In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on a recent study indicating that Chief Justice John Roberts “plays favorites among his eight colleagues when assigning the court’s most important decisions.”
  • At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro discusses Cato’s amicus brief in a challenge to a Florida eminent domain law that “empowers condemning authorities to fast-track their appropriation of a desired property by allowing the authority to simply deposit the constitutionally required just compensation into the court registry and then taking title to the condemned property.”
  • In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that “Neal Katyal’s 26th argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, given in an otherwise routine case Monday, marked a major milestone: He has appeared at the lectern more times than any other male minority lawyer except for Thurgood Marshall.”

 

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] scotusblog.com.

 

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 10, 2015, 6:01 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/tuesday-round-up-299/