Breaking News

Friday round-up

Coverage and commentary continue to focus on next week’s oral arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott, the “one person, one vote” challenge to the state legislative maps in Texas.  At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen explains why he is “not all that worried about what the Court is going to do” in the case, while in The Economist Steven Mazie suggests that the stakes in the case “are potentially huge, and it appears that Democrats have the most to lose.”  In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps contends that the challengers in the case “are asking the Court to adopt a new constitutional rule with no constitutional provision attached.”  At ACSblog, Daniel Tokaji argues that the case is an important one “because what the Court says will affect how states draw state legislative districts after the next census and possibly even sooner. The hard question isn’t the disposition of Evenwel but rather its implications for the next case.”  In an analysis at Social Explorer, Andrew Beveridge argues that “the effects of ruling for the plaintiffs in Evenwel would be extensive.” 

Other coverage and commentary look ahead to to next week’s oral arguments in the challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process.  In USA Today, Richard Wolf notes that, if “the court issues a sweeping decision on the constitutionality of affirmative action, it could affect public universities across the country, as well as private ones that accept federal aid.”  And Amy Wax and Neil Siegel discuss the case in a podcast for Constitution Daily.


  • In the Yuma Sun, Howard Fischer previews next week’s oral arguments in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
  • At ACSblog, Jason Steed looks back at the oral arguments in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo ands concludes that, when the Court issues its decision, it will “be big news—one way or the other.”
  • Also at ACSblog, Jessie Hill looks ahead to Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, the challenge to several provisions regulating abortions in Texas, and suggests that the case “may well be the most significant abortion case in 24 years.”
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston analyzes Tuesday’s decision in OBB Personenverkehr v. Sachs, explaining why, although “the case focused on one American and one incident, it may well have larger meaning.”
  • In The New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan discusses the case of Robert Roberson, a Texas death-row inmate whose petition the Justices will consider today; Caplan argues that it “would be a miscarriage of justice if the Court decided not to take the case.”
  • At the Employee Benefit Adviser, Nancy Ross and her co-authors discuss Wednesday’s oral arguments in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, observing that, although the case is “hardly a blockbuster case in terms of media attention,” it nonetheless has vital implications for employee benefit plans — and for future attempts to impose state-specific regimes to gather health data from those plans.”
  • At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro discusses the Court’s recent order blocking “an election with racial qualifications that could eventually establish a new government for so-called ‘native Hawaiians.’”

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 4, 2015, 6:34 AM),