Thursday round-up

At the American Constitution Society, Rick Hasen analyzes the significance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to issue a stay of Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, concluding that “both opponents and proponents of gay marriage should read very little into” the order. He suggests that the stay may in fact help proponents of same-sex marriage because it could allow public support for the of possible shifts in public opinion favoring their view in the time before the case reaches Supreme Court. At the Christian Science Monitor, Daniel Wood similarly recounts recent developments in the case and the prospect that a delay could benefit proponents of same-sex marriage.  And at the San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko considers the effect that the Court’s 1997 decision in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona may have on the Proposition 8 litigation. In the earlier case, the Court expressed doubt that sponsors of a ballot initiative had standing to defend the law in federal court.

Yesterday the Court released the list of clerks for the October 2010 Term.  This blog and the BLT both have coverage, with the BLT reporting that Harvard Law School has the most clerks and this blog reporting that Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit is the judge sending the most clerks (six out of thirty nine).

Briefly:

• Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal reports on a recent petition presenting the question whether a judge’s denial of appointed counsel in federal cases can be immediately appealed or must instead wait until the end of the trial.  Mauro also looks at the life and memorable quotes of James Kilpatrick, the former Supreme Court columnist who passed away last weekend.
• Elsewhere at the National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle considers why so many cases originating in Arizona have shown up at the Court.  The NLJ also provides an overview of key Arizona cases heard by the Supreme Court and the outcomes.
• Based on his own quantitative study of the Court with Christopher Johnston, Brandon Bartels of Concurring Opinions concludes that this Court is most fairly characterized as a “moderate” one.
• At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh discusses whether a recent decision of the Tenth Circuit might be an appropriate vehicle for the Court to revisit the endorsement test for Establishment Clause cases.
• Mike Sacks at First One @ One First reports on recent developments in the challenge to a Nebraska law regulating abortion and considers what might happen if the case reaches the Court.
• At York Daily Record, Jeff Frantz previews Snyder v. Phelps, scheduled for argument on October 6.