Monday round-up
on Oct 5, 2015 at 6:15 am
It’s the first Monday in October, which means that the Justices return to the bench today for oral arguments. Robert Barnes of The Washington Post previews the new Term, noting that the Justices begin it “with a chief justice who has become a campaign issue and a docket that seems designed to remind Americans about the importance of the high court in the presidential contest.” Richard Wolf does the same for USA Today, reporting that the Court “embarks on a new term Monday that would make Yogi Berra proud: It truly is déjà vu all over again.” Lawrence Hurley of Reuters previews the Court’s business docket, reporting that three “class action cases give the conservative-leaning court another opportunity to cut back on such litigation, as it has done in a series of rulings in recent years.” Adam White and Adam Gustafson also look at the new Term in a preview for the Washington Examiner, suggesting that “one should expect the drama to continue when the justices return to the bench this week.” The National Constitution Center also hosts a preview podcast from Kenji Yoshino and Josh Blackman. And at Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost contends that the Court’s more conservative Justices may be “still licking their wounds after a term when they were on the losing side of most of the most important decisions. But for conservatives, this may be the new season that diehard sports fans are always told to wait until.”
On Thursday the Court issued grants from its September 28 Conference, adding thirteen new cases to its docket for the upcoming Term. In a post at Yahoo! News, this blog’s Lyle Denniston looks at Puerto Rico v. Valle, one of those new cases, in which the Court will consider whether Puerto Rico and the federal government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. And at Fox 13 of Utah, Ben Winslow reports on another of Thursday’s grants: Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court will consider whether, if police learn about an outstanding arrest warrant during a stop that turns out to have been illegal, the Fourth Amendment bars the use of any evidence obtained as a result of a search at the time of the arrest.”
Briefly:
- In The New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan suggests that, if the Court abolishes the death penalty, “the case of Richard Glossip is likely to be a significant point of reference in accounts of how it happened.”
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.
