Wednesday round-up
on Apr 9, 2014 at 8:02 am
It was one week ago today that the Court issued its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, striking down the aggregate limits that federal law imposed on contributions to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees, but the ruling still dominates coverage of, and commentary on, the Court. In the Daily Journal (via his Election Law Blog), Rick Hasen discusses the solo concurring opinion filed in the case by Justice Clarence Thomas, while in a post at The Guardian Hasen argues that “[i]t’s about time for Congress to pass some new laws protecting voting rights, and it’s high time . . . for us to dare the supreme court to strike even more of them down.” Also at Hasen’s Election Law Blog, Brianne Gorod contends that the Chief Justice’s “attempt to portray his decision in” the case “as minimalist actually shows just how far from minimalist it is.” At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Erwin Chemerinsky predicts that “the Court’s decision in McCutcheon portends much more drastic changes in campaign finance law.” And at Angry Bear, Beverly Mann has three posts related to the decision – here, here, and here.
In other news:
- Greenwire’s Jeremy P. Jacobs previews the argument, scheduled for later this month, in CTS Corp. v. Waldberger, in which the Court will consider whether federal environmental laws preempt a North Carolina statute of repose in a lawsuit brought by homeowners who are seeking damages and remedial action from the former owner of an abandoned factory.
- At Appellate Daily, Michelle Olsen reports on a recent cert. petition that challenges a defendant’s conviction for making threats on Facebook.
- At Mayer Brown’s Class Defense blog, Donald Falk discusses this week’s grant in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, in which the Court will consider whether a defendant who wants to remove his case to federal court must include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or can instead simply allege the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.”
- The New York Times profiles Edward Blum, the lawyer behind some of the recent challenges to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act, and his efforts to recruit plaintiffs for new challenges.
Remember, we rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you see a recent (published in the last two or three days) article or op-ed related to the Court that you’d like us to consider, please send a link to roundup[at]scotusblog.com. Thank you!
