Tuesday round-up
on Sep 30, 2014 at 11:47 am
Yesterday the Justices met for the so-called “Long Conference,” at which they considered new petitions for certiorari for the first time since late June. Once again, news coverage of the Court focuses on the cases slated for consideration at that conference, and in particular the seven petitions arising out of challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Ben Winslow of Fox 13 News in Salt Lake City summarizes the story in Utah, where state officials have asked the Court to review a decision by the Tenth Circuit striking down that state’s ban. In his Sidebar column for The New York Times, Adam Liptak discusses the same-sex marriage issue in the context of the Court’s tendency to release major opinions late in the Term; he observes that, although “[t]here are lots of open questions about the road the Supreme Court justices will take to a final decision about whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, . . . one thing seems clear: The answer will arrive next June.” And at Slate, Susannah Pollvogt and Catherine Smith urge the Court to consider the “remarkably simple proposition” that, they say, has thus far not been considered by the lower courts: “Bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law because they punish children in an effort to control the conduct of adults.” Finally, at his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses the absence of any grants from yesterday’s Long Conference and the possible explanation therefor.
Yesterday’s order by a divided Court blocking early voting in Ohio also garnered headlines. Lyle Denniston covered the order for this blog. Other coverage and commentary come from Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog; Hasen also discussed the Ohio case (among others) in a post on “the voting wars” at Slate.
Still other coverage of the Court focuses on the cases already on its merits docket. At Greenwire, Jeremy P. Jacobs notes that what the Term currently “lacks in traditional environmental litigation it makes up for with personality and cases that — while not directly environmental — could set important precedents for EPA and other agencies.” At the WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp weighs in on the issue of jurisdiction in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens (a case that Ronald Mann previewed for us last week). He predicts that “there is little if any likelihood that the Supreme Court will conclude that procedural obstacles prevent it from deciding the question presented in” the case; rather, “the Court is likely to use the case to explain to lower courts that there are no valid reasons for narrowly construing federal removal jurisdiction.” At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr previews next week’s oral argument in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Court will consider “whether a reasonable mistake of law can create cause for a Fourth Amendment search or seizure”; “the defendant,” Kerr argues, “has the better argument that the answer is ‘no.’” And at the AntitrustConnect Blog, Steven Cernak previews the oral arguments in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, in which the Court will consider the scope of the state action exemption from the antitrust laws. Cernak acknowledges that “[t]he antitrust community seems to anticipate the Court ruling for the FTC,” but he counters that he is “not so certain.”
Briefly:
- At Salon, Eric Segal and Lisa McElroy weigh in on the Court and transparency.
- At Slate, Brianne Gorod surveys “some of the cases the court should have granted last year.”
- In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration may be required), Catherine Smith and Susannah Pollvogt criticize a recent decision by a federal judge in Louisiana upholding that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that he “may not pick and choose among Supreme Court precedent to achieve a desired outcome.”
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
