on Mar 24, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the accommodation offered to religious non-profit groups that do not wish to provide access to birth control for their female employees and students. Lyle Denniston has analysis of the argument for this blog, while Mark Walsh provides a “view” from the Courtroom and Molly Runkle rounds up early coverage and commentary. Amy Howe provides analysis on her blog. Additional coverage comes from Tony Mauro at Supreme Court Brief (subscription or registration may be required) and Danielle Blevins at Talk Media News. Additional commentary comes from Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, Adam Feldman at Empirical SCOTUS, Marci Hamilton at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Timothy Jost at Health Affairs Blog, Alison Howard at CNS News, Marty Lederman at Balkinization, Justin Sadowsky at Dubitante, David Gans at New Republic, and Sister Simone Campbell in an op-ed for CNN. At The Economist, Steven Mazie provides commentary on the Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court more generally.
On Tuesday the Court issued its opinion in the class-action case Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. Additional coverage comes from Asher Steinberg at The Narrowest Grounds, Alan Morrison at The George Washington Law Review, Andrew Pincus at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog, Tim Bishop and Chad Clamage at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog, Deborah LaFetra at Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, and Sharon Rosenberg at Thompson Coburn LLP.
On Tuesday the Court heard oral argument in Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, in which the Court is considering whether federal bankruptcy law preempts a Puerto Rico law intended to allow the commonwealth’s public utilities to restructure their debts. Lyle Denniston provides analysis for this blog, with additional coverage coming from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View.
Coverage of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court continues. At Virginia Law Weekly, Brock Phillips argues that Garland’s confirmation would be beneficial for both President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. Other commentary comes from the editorial boards at The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Citizens’ Voice, The Times-Tribune, and The Courier.
- At Dubitante, Justin Sadowsky explains what happens when a case is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
- At the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief in this Term’s drunk-driving cases, Bernard v. Minnesota, Birchfield v. North Dakota, and Beylund v. Levi.
- At The Federalist, Kevin Theriot relates the “phone-hacking and abortion-drug mandate cases” to the “principle our Founding Fathers recognized in the seemingly antiquated Third Amendment.”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the Scholars of Religious Liberty, Sarah Barringer Gordon, et al., in support of the respondents in Zubik v. Burwell.]