Tuesday round-up
on May 6, 2014 at 8:11 am
Yesterday’s divided decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway, upholding a New York town’s practice of beginning its town council sessions with a prayer, generated substantial coverage and commentary. At this blog, Lyle Denniston had our main analysis of the decision, followed by Mark Walsh’s report from the courtroom and my Plain English report. Other coverage of the decision comes from Mark Walsh for Education Week’s School Law Blog, Bill Mears of CNN, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal. Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo also has a story in the case, in which he focuses on Justice Kagan’s dissent in the case, while Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind Poll reports – based on a survey conducted in anticipation of the ruling — that Americans overwhelmingly favor prayers at public meetings. Commentary on the case comes from Noah Feldman of Bloomberg View, Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Christopher Schmidt of ISCOTUSnow (video), Leslie Griffin at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Walter Olson at Secular Right, and Alex J. Luchenitser at ACSblog.
Yesterday the Court also issued orders from its May 2 Conference. After relisting the case twice, the Court denied review in Drake v. Jerejian, a challenge to New Jersey’s law governing permits to carry handguns outside the home. Lyle Denniston reported on that denial and the order list more generally for this blog, while Kent Scheidegger has coverage of yesterday’s proceedings at the Court at Crime and Consequences. Other coverage of the denial in Drake comes from CNN’s Bill Mears, with commentary from Ilya Shapiro at Cato at Liberty. The Court also issued a summary decision in Tolan v. Cotton, sending the qualified immunity case back to the Fifth Circuit for a new review. Luke Rioux discusses the decision in detail at Harmless Error, while Howard Wasserman weighs in at PrawfsBlawg.
Briefly:
- At The Huffington Post, Michael Price and Amos Toh discuss last week’s oral arguments in the cellphone privacy cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. They contend that “[r]equiring a warrant for cell phone searches related to an arrest will prevent our personal data from being searched needlessly, kept indefinitely, and used improperly.”
- At The Daily Caller, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga discusses Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the patent case in which the Court heard oral argument last week. She argues that, “[u]nless the Court acts, one major casualty in this case could be the essential principle that United States patents apply specifically in the United States.”
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in Riley at the certiorari stage, but did not participate in the case at the merits stage. In any event, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
