Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the latest chapter in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the dispute between the would-be adoptive parents and biological father of “Baby Veronica.” In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the federal Indian Child Welfare Act does not bar the
Briefly: At this blog, Dan Stein reports on the most recent effort by the Senate to require cameras at the Court. Yesterday California officials asked Justice Kennedy to allow them to delay the implementation of an order requiring them to reduce the state’s prison populations to 137.5% of its intended capacity.
The Court issued the last three decisions of the Term yesterday, bringing the total decisions this week to eleven. Coverage and commentary have focused on the decisions in the two same-sex marriage cases, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Coverage and commentary focused on the five opinions that the Court issued yesterday; this blog’s round-ups of the early coverage of the decisions can be found here and here.
Coverage and commentary yesterday focused largely on the decisions that have not yet been issued. At the ISCOTUSnow blog, Carolyn Shapiro explains the opinion-drafting process, and why the public is still waiting on the decisions in high-profile cases this Term.
Monday’s decision in Maryland v. King continued to generate commentary. Writing for this blog, Ronald Collins discusses Justice Scalia’s use of the word “panopticon” in his dissent, while at Slate, Barry Friedman argues that “neither [the majority nor the dissent] got it quite right” because they failed to take full account of the distinction between investigative and regulatory searches.
Tuesday’s opinions and order list continue to generate coverage and commentary. At this blog, Jordan Steiker discusses the opinion in McQuiggin v. Perkins, in which the Court held that an actual innocence plea can overcome the one-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions; other coverage of McQuiggin comes from Dominic Perella at MSNBC.
At this blog, Lyle Denniston discusses nine pending cert. petitions regarding new EPA rules on greenhouse gases and observes that the petitions “could either turn into one of the biggest regulatory cases the Court has had in years, or could go nowhere because of the argument that the Supreme Court