Monday round-up

After another relatively quiet week at the Court, the weekend’s clippings focus on last week’s oral arguments inKiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the decision inKurns v. Railroad Friction Products, and next Term’sFisher v. University of Texas.

Last Tuesday, the Justices heard oral arguments inKiobel, the case that asks the Court to consider whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) allows foreigners to bring suit against corporationsin U.S. federal courts for violations of international human rights laws.In his column forBloomberg View, Noah Feldman concludes that, based on the Justices’ questions at oral argument, the case will focus as much on whether federal courts are the right place to hold foreigners responsible for human-rights violations as it will on whether corporations can be held liable at all. AtJost on Justice, Kenneth Jost speculates that if the Justices’ questions are any indication and they often are Kiobel and the other plaintiffs are likely to . . . have the courthouse door shut in their faces with a decision shielding foreign corporations from responsibility for human rights abuses in foreign countries, at least in U.S. courts. And in an editorial for theNew York Times, Lincoln Caplan makes the argument that, [i]n a world where multinational corporations are primary actors, the need for a way to hold them accountable for extreme abuses is more urgent than ever. . . . Providing a forum for victims seeking justice against corporate bad actors is appropriate to Americas history and role in the international community.

The Court’s decision to grant cert. inFisher, in which the Justices will take up the constitutionality of the undergraduate admissions policies used by the University of Texas, continues to draw coverage and commentary.In theWashington Post, Catherine Hoprofiles the duo behind the case,” Bert Rein, co-founding partner of Wiley Rein, and Edward Blum, founder of the Project for Fair Representation, a legal defense foundation that opposes race preferences in education, voting, contracting, and employment. Rick Hasen responds to the story at hisElection Law Blog. Also in theWashington Post, the paper’s editorial board argues that if the Court finds fault with the universitys approach, it should opt for a narrow ruling, rather than using Ms. Fishers case to erode or reverse the modest affirmative action efforts allowed by law. And in commentary for theChronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Careyaddresses what he believes will be the Courts ruling in the case: a decision that creates a world where colleges are free to offer preferences to legaciesthe last vestige of inheritable aristocratic privilege in modern societyand the children of generous donors, but not to members of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

Last Wednesday, the Court issued its ruling inKurns, holding that the plaintiffs state-law claims against the manufacturers of locomotive products containing the asbestos that caused her husbands death were preempted by federal law.Fox NewsandSteven Schwinnat Constitutional Law Prof Blog have coverage.

Briefly:

• At theWashington Post, Robert Barnes reports on a recent study (also discussed in Joshuas round-up on Friday) highlighting the ways in which the composition of current Court differs from those before it. The study’s author concludes that, among other differences, the Justices on the Roberts Court have spent more pre-appointment time in legal academia, appellate judging, and Washington, D.C. than any previous Court.
• UPIs Michael Kirkland summarizes the issues underlyingArizona v. United States the challenge to Arizonas S.B. 1070 as well as the case’s prior history and possible political consequences. The Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25.
• Joan Biskupic of Reutersdiscusses the unusual backstory behind the dismissal ofMagner v. Gallagher, a fair-housing case that the Court was scheduled to hear last week. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the respondents in the case.]
• At theElection Law Blog, Rick Hasen highlights twoamicusbriefs urging the Court to grant cert. in a case involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
• At theDaily Caller, Matt Lewis interviews Karen Harned, the executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business one of the lead plaintiffs in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act about the broader consequences of a decision upholding the individual mandate.
• TheDenver Posts Electa Draper reports on remarks made by Justice Antonin Scalia this weekend at the Living the Catholic Faith Conference, where he told the crowd to have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity by others.
• Writing for theHuffington Post, Douglas McSwain contends that some of the Courts most historic decisions, such asMarbury v. MadisonandDred Scott, should counsel the Justices to take the out provided by the Anti-Injunction Act in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act.