Thursday round-up
on Mar 10, 2016 at 6:54 am
Commentary on Monday’s summary reversal in V.L. v. E.L., in which the Justices ruled that states must recognize an adoption by a same-sex parent that occurred in another state, comes from Jane Schacter, who at Stanford’s Legal Aggregate argues that the decision “creates important protection for families with LGBT parents”; and from Gregory Lipper, who at Protect Thy Neighbor contends that, although “the Alabama Supreme Court got its comeuppance, it’s easy to overlook the human costs of the Alabama court’s ongoing attempts to thwart the marital and parental rights of same-sex couples.”
At Notice and Comment, Michael Kagan has “initial reactions” to the federal government’s opening brief in United States v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy. And at Politico, Seung Min Kim reports on the brief that congressional Democrats filed in support of the administration.
At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has mini-profiles of some of the president’s possible nominees, while Jen Kirby does the same for New York. At his own blog, Andrew Hamm summarizes a political science article on how judges who might be on the president’s shortlist might alter their behavior when a vacancy occurs.
Briefly:
- In Mother Jones, Michael Mechanic discusses the judicial-recusal case Williams v. Pennsylvania, arguing that it “shows the perils of appointing prosecutors as judges.”
- In a podcast, the Christian weekly WORLD News Group samples audio clips from the oral arguments in the challenge to Texas abortion regulations, a case that it characterizes as addressing “whether its constitutional for a state to impose safety regulations on abortion clinic businesses.”
- The Open File analyzes Monday’s decision in Wearry v. Cain, the summary reversal of a state court decision denying habeas relief to a death-row inmate, characterizing the ruling as “one in a long line that demonstrates Louisiana courts do not understand prosecutors’ obligations under Brady.”
