on Jan 20, 2016 at 8:55 am
Today the Justices will hear oral arguments in two more cases – the final two cases of the January sitting. In Nebraska v. Parker, they will consider a dispute over land on the Omaha Indian reservation in Nebraska. Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from Maame Esi Austin and Krsna Avila of Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. In Sturgeon v. Frost, they will consider the case of an Alaska man who wants to use his hovercraft to hunt moose there. Coverage comes from Todd Henderson for this blog, Robin Bravender of E&E Publishing, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, and Kelsey MacElroy and Katie Marren of Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.
Yesterday the Court announced that it had granted review in United States v. Texas, in which it is considering a challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy for undocumented immigrants. Molly Runkle rounded up early coverage and commentary for this blog. Other coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Mark Walsh of Education Week, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, and Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via YourWestValley.com), while Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that, even if the administration prevails, it “could face a surge of applicants and little time to process them before he leaves office in January 2017.” Other commentary comes from Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Letitia Saucedo at ACSblog, and from Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg. As Mark Walsh reported for Education Week, the Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, “a special education case stemming from a dispute over whether a student with cerebral palsy could bring her doctor-prescribed service dog to school.” And as Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (via Tucson.com) reports, the Justices also “refused to resurrect a challenge by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the Obama administration’s deferred action programs.” Finally, at his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen weighs in on the Court’s denial of review “in a case in which the D.C. Circuit en banc had unanimously upheld federal law banning direct campaign contributions to candidates by federal contractors.”
Yesterday the Court also heard oral arguments in two cases. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, the Justices are considering whether the First Amendment prohibits the government from demoting an employee based on a supervisor’s perception that the employee supports a political candidate. Coverage comes from Howard Wasserman for this blog, Mark Walsh of Education Week, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg; Wasserman also has additional commentary on the argument at PrawfsBlawg, and Ruthann Robson weighs in at Constitutional Law Prof Blog. In Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, the Justices are considering the citizenship of trusts for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Ronald Mann covered the oral argument for this blog, while I did the same for my own blog.
Commentary on last week’s grant in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, the challenge by a church nursery school that was denied recycled rubber for its playground to a Missouri law that prohibits public funds for religious programs, comes from Lyle Denniston at Constitution Daily and Ethan Blevins at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog.
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Heffernan v. City of Paterson. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
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.