Wednesday round-up

ADAM CHANDLER AUG 25, 2010 9:20 AM

Responding to an order by the Court, a federal district court judge in Georgia found that death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis “is not innocent” of murdering a police officer twenty-one years ago.  SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston reports that the judge, William T. Moore, Jr., apparently was “acting as a fact-gatherer directly for the Supreme Court, so any appeal by Davis may have to go directly to the Justices.”  Indeed, Judge Moore forwarded a copy of his opinion to the Court.  CNN, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also have coverage of the developments in Davis’s case.

Briefly:

• In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel concludes that as a result of the Court’s decision in Citizens United, the “world of campaign finance is new, confusing – and very alarming.” And Peter Stone discusses the practical impact of the case in Mother Jones.

• At ACSblog, F. Paul Bland, Jr. previews next Term’s AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, scheduled for argument in November. Bland posits that “[i]f the Court uses this case to grant the fondest wishes of some corporate lawyers[,] . . . then [it] could have the kind of impact on class actions that an asteroid landing in Mexico millions of years ago had on dinosaurs.”

• Bloomberg’s Ellen Rosen reports on a Freedom of Information Act case in which the Second Circuit recently denied rehearing en banc.  One of the parties to the case – an organization made up of twenty banks – has already declared its intention to seek Supreme Court review of the three-judge panel’s decision requiring the Federal Reserve Board to release documents related to the 2008 government bailout.

• Eugene Volokh has a post on the nuances of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction at the Volokh Conspiracy.

• And finally, in the Huffington Post, Richard Albert argues that “[j]ust as the Supreme Court looks to the intentions of the constitutional drafters to uncover the meaning of the original Constitution, the Court should also look to those who wrote and inspired the Fourteenth Amendment to understand the meaning of today’s modern Constitution.”

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY