Thursday round-up

By Amanda Rice
on Jun 9, 2011 at 8:21 am

The Justices are expected to issue opinions this morning at 10 a.m.; later today, they will meet for their private Conference (here are the petitions up for consideration that we’re watching).

In the meantime, coverage of California’s plan to comply with the Court’s recent decision in Brown v. Plata, which requires the state to reduce prison overcrowding, continues. As Adam reported in yesterday’s round-up, the state plans to “mov[e] low-level offenders to county jails and build[] new prisons to accommodate serious criminals” At the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones highlights the concerns of “local sheriffs,” who “said they fear the state would begin to transfer inmates without any [funding] support.” JURIST also has coverage of the proposal.

Briefly:

• At the Cockle Bur, Shon Hopwood discusses citation style in Supreme Court briefs. Writing from his experience at Cockle Printing, he notes that “[m]ost attorneys use Bluebook style for citations” — “the safest bet for citation style”; however, he notes a few “peculiarities” of Supreme Court briefing style.
• On Monday the Court denied cert. in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, a challenge to California’s policy of offering in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants to attend state high schools. A Los Angeles Times op-ed highlights almost uniformly negative reader responses to the program.
• The editorial board of the New York Times criticizes the recent decision by a federal district judge holding that corporations may make direct contributions to political candidates (Adam discussed reactions to the case in yesterday’s round-up, while Lyle summarized the decision for the blog here).  The board described the decision as “Citizens United’s outrageous offspring”  and accused the judge of simultaneously failing to properly apply Citizens United and “mimic[king] its model of extreme judicial activism.”
• At the National Law Journal, Tony Mauro identifies some signs that “in the upper echelons of Supreme Court practice . . . diversity is blossoming where before there was none.”