Evening round-up: Today’s decisions
on Jun 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm
This morning Justice Kennedy announced the opinion for the Court in Arizona v. United States, which has dominated the news about the Court today. In Arizona, a majority of the Justices agreed with the lower courts that three of the four provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070, at issue in the case are preempted by federal immigration law. However, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in enjoining the fourth provision at issue in the case — Section 2(B), sometimes known as the “show your papers” provision – before the state courts had a chance to interpret it and without a showing that enforcement of the provision would conflict with federal immigration law and its goals. Lyle Denniston’s analysis is here. Initial coverage of the decision came from Kevin Russell of this blog, while Amy Howe of this blog summarized the decision “In Plain English.” We are also hosting an online symposium about the decision; contributions from Peter Spiro, Marc Miller and Gabriel J. Chin, Jay Sekulow, Lucas Guttentag, Richard Samp and Kevin Johnson are now available, with others to follow soon.
Other coverage of the decision is available from Greg Stohr for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Nina Totenberg of NPR, The New York Times, CNN, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, the Associated Press (via the Detroit Free Press), NPR, Al Jazeera English, the Christian Science Monitor, Mother Jones, CBS News, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox News Latino, Fox News, the Huffington Post, Politico, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. And in an interview with NPR’s Morning Edition, Nina Totenberg also reports on all three of today’s decisions.
Commentary on the decision is available from Bloomberg View, the National Review Online, the Atlantic Wire, the New Yorker, American Spectator and Reason.
Justice Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring in part but dissenting in part; he also issued a summary (via The Caucus blog of the The New York Times) of his oral statement from the bench to the press. At The New York Times, The Caucus blog has coverage of the dissent, as do The Hill, Talking Points Memo, ABC News, Politico, and USA Today’s The Oval blog.
Other coverage of the decision has focused on the response to the decision by politicians, including President Obama, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and Mitt Romney. The Associated Press (via The Washington Post) lists “the main players” in the litigation, while Politico has posted a video of Governor Brewer’s statement about the decision. The White House has published the text of President Obama’s statement. Politico also reports on other reactions, including from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; at The Arena blog, it hosts a debate on whether the decision will give the President “an added boost from Hispanic voters” in November. Coverage of the political dimension of the decision continues at The Washington Post, the Associated Press (via the Huffington Post), ABC News, Reuters, USA Today’s The Oval blog, The Caucus blog of The New York Times, and The Fix blog of The Washington Post (here and here). CNN has been live blogging responses from various politicians and analysts.
The Court also issued an opinion in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, holding by a vote of five to four that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that requires life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Coverage of the decision is available from Tejinder Singh at this blog, CNN, Reuters, The New York Times, the Associated Press (via the Seattle Post Intelligencer,) The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CBS, ABA Journal, Slate, and the New Yorker.
Finally, in a one-page per curiam, five-to-four decision, the Court summarily reversed the decision of the Montana Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock. The Court held that “there can be no serious doubt” that its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC applies to the Montana law at issue – which prohibits political expenditures by corporations in state elections – to render it unconstitutional. Lyle Denniston’s analysis of that decision is here. Additional coverage is available from Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press (via NPR), Reuters, Talking Points Memo, the Atlantic, Politico, The Hill, Time’s Swampland blog, and The Washington Post’s The Fix blog. Commentary is available from American Prospect, New Yorker, National Review Online, the Nation, Cato@Liberty, Election Law Blog (and here), Public Citizen, the Brennan Center, and the New Republic.
