Friday round-up

KIERA FLYNN OCT 14, 2011 10:31 AM

Analysis continues of Wednesday’s oral argument in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, in which the Court is considering the constitutionality of a prison policy requiring strip-searches of all arrestees.  At the Atlantic, Garrett Epps reviews the Justices’ questions during argument, concluding that “the inmates’ point of view was not very much on the justices’ minds.” And while Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic argues that the Court “desperately needs to draw a line on strip searches,” Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal notes just how difficult that line is to draw.   The Philadelphia Inquirer  also has coverage of the argument.   [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys and staff work for the blog in various capacities, represents petitioner Albert Florence in the Supreme Court.]

Yesterday the Senate Indian Affairs Committee heard testimony about, among other things, the effects of the Court’s 2009 decision in Carcieri v. Kempthorne, which limited the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to put land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act.  Coverage comes from Tulsa World, the Associated Press (via the Washington Post), the San Francisco Chronicle, CBS News, News OK, Providence Journal, and Canada Views.

Writing for the Huffington Post, Geoffrey R. Stone examines Justice Scalia’s recent remarks on the First Amendment in relation to the landmark libel case, New York Times v. Sullivan.  Stone concludes that the case was decided correctly and argues that the outcome advocated by Justice Scalia is “profoundly inconsistent with what the Framers of the First Amendment had in mind.”

Briefly:

• Writing for the Huffington Post, Stephen Wyse urges Congress to require “mandatory case review by the U.S. Supreme Court when two or more of the federal circuit courts of appeals have contradictory applications on issues of federal law or where the Circuit Court of Appeals has de facto overruled an on-point U.S. Supreme Court precedent.” 

• In an editorial for the New York Times, Bruce C. Vladeck and Stephen I. Vladeck argue that as a result of Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California,  “the Obama administration may be complicit in eviscerating Medicaid — and setting back the broader goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to quality health care.”

• The editorial board of the New York Times weighs in on this week’s argument in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood and urges the Court to “rule that a statute explicitly creating a right to sue trumps a contract allowing only arbitration.”

• The Guardian marks Justice Thomas’s first twenty years on the Court.

• MortgageOrb reports on the Court’s grant of cert. in Freeman v. Quicken Loans.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C. represents the petitioners in Freeman.]

• At Public Citizen’s Consumer Law & Policy Blog, Georgetown’s Brian Wolfman blogs about Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who recently indicated that, if elected, his Administration might decline to follow some of the Court’s precedents.

• Two more reviews of Five Chiefs, the recently released memoir of retired Justice John Paul Stevens are in: one from the Los Angeles Times, the other in video form from C-SPAN.

• Justice Scalia spoke in Richmond yesterday on brief writing and oral advocacy.  The Associated Press (via the Indiana Republic) and the Richmond Times Dispatch have coverage. 

• On Thursday, Justice Breyer spoke at the World Affairs Council in Philadelphia.  The Associated Press (via the Washington Post) has coverage.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY