Thursday round-up
on Oct 16, 2014 at 6:12 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in the patent procedure case Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog. At Written Description, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette provides her “thoughts about the leaning of each Justice,” while Irena Royzman analyzes the arguments in the case for Law360 (registration or subscription required). At ISCOTUSnow, Edward Lee predicts the winner of the oral argument in both of yesterday’s cases based on the number of questions for each side at the oral argument.
On Tuesday evening, the Court blocked parts of a Texas law regulating abortion clinics from going into effect pending the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the merits of the challenges to the law. Lyle Denniston covered the order for this blog, while at RH Reality Check Jessica Mason Pieklo deems the Court’s “one-paragraph order . . . remarkable for a number of reasons, including the fact that it represents a rare win for abortion rights advocates before the conservative Supreme Court.”
Tuesday’s denial of review in Jones v. United States, in which three men were challenging their sentences for selling drugs on the ground that those sentences were based in part on drug quantities alleged in counts on which they had been acquitted, garnered commentary from Margareth Etienne at the Illinois Law Faculty Blog and Ilya Shapiro at Cato at Liberty.
Briefly:
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reviews, and considers possible explanations for, the last “eight days,” during which “the justices managed to touch on American society’s hottest of hot-button issues: same-sex marriage, access to the polls, and finally – inevitably – abortion, and all without actually issuing an opinion.”
- In a guest post at Canadian Competition and Regulatory Law, Steven Cernak discusses Tuesday’s oral argument in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission and concludes that “it appears possible that the Court will find a state agency composed of and elected by market participants will need active supervision of their actions.”
- At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger analyzes this week’s oral argument in the habeas appeal case Jennings v. Stephens.
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.
