Friday round-up

By Kiera Flynn
on Aug 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm

In the New York Times, Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire discusses the prospect that in the near future the Court will consider the question of whether corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights violations overseas.  A group of Nigerian plaintiffs recently filed a cert. petition seeking review of the Second Circuit decision halting their lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell.

Coverage of Arizona’s recent filing of a cert. petition seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision blocking enforcement of certain provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, S.B. 1070, continues.  The Arizona Republic (via the USA Today), CNN, Fox Nation, Main Justice, the Latina, and the Tucson Citizen all have reports.

The editorial board of the New York Times discusses Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, next Term’s case involving whether Medicaid beneficiaries and providers can bring a lawsuit to challenge state reductions in reimbursement rates.  The board argues that “beneficiaries need the right to sue — and to negotiate legal settlements — so that they can force states to consider whether reducing provider payments will limit access to care.”  Reuters and McKnight’s also have coverage of the case.

Briefly: 

• At Bloomberg’s Business Week, Greg Stohr reports on the case of Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett, which the Court will hear next Term.  Stohr observes that the couple’s “minor land dispute” with the Environmental Protection Agency has the potential to become “a far-reaching case on government power”.
• At The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr analyzes the government’s brief in the GPS tracking case, United States v. Jones.  During the upcoming Term, the Court will consider whether the warrantless installation of a GPS device on a car violates the Fourth Amendment.
• At Dorf on Law, Mike Dorf makes predictions for the Court’s coming Term, including that it will be “more interesting” than the last.  He cites, as examples of interesting cases, the possibility of grants in cases involving the Affordable Care Act and the Defense of Marriage Act.