Monday round-up

MARISSA MILLER JUN 25, 2012 7:42 AM

With the Court expected to announce the health care decision sometime this week – possibly as soon as today – the challenge to the Affordable Care Act continues to dominate the weekend’s coverage.

General coverage of the case comes from NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today,  the Los Angeles Times, and McClatchy Newspapers. Predictions about the Court’s ruling come from Douglas Kmiec at America magazine and Walter Dellinger at Slate.  The Wall Street Journal reports on the atmosphere in the nation’s capital, while the Associated Press previews possible reactions to the ruling from the Romney and Obama campaigns.  The Washington Post and the New York Times both report on the federal government’s legal strategy in the case (as well as criticism of that strategy), while the Associated Press and Jack Goldsmith (writing for the New Republic) discuss the secrecy that the Court has maintained throughout the proceedings.  Stories that focus on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli appear in the Washington Post and the ABA Journal; the New York Times discusses President Obama’s wait for a decision.  Finally, Reuters reports on a new poll indicating that most Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act even though they strongly support most of its provisions.

At the Atlantic, James Fallows argues that norms are what give the Court its legitimacy, but the “Roberts majority is barreling ahead without regard for the norms, and it is taking the court’s legitimacy with it.” In his column for the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne encourages “supporters of the ACA,” if the law is struck down, to “find their voices and point to the 30 million people the law would help to buy health insurance.”

Finally, coverage of last Thursday’s decisions also continues. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports on Knox v. SEIU, in which the Court held that employees who decline to join their public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to be compelled, without notice and the opportunity to object, to pay special assessments for political activities; Ross Runkel analyzed the opinion for this blog. Writing for the First Amendment Center, Tony Mauro calls the case “a significant shift” and notes that some analysts consider it a death knell for public employee unions.

The Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal cover the opinion in Dorsey v. United States, in which the Court held that the Fair Sentencing Act – which reduced the disparities in the length of sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses – applies to defendants whose crack cocaine offenses occurred before the Act went into effect but were sentenced after the Act’s effective date.

Briefly:

• Susan F. Mandiberg analyzed Thursday’s opinion in Southern Union Co. v. United States for this blog.
• Pamela Constable of the Washington Post reports that although Hispanic and pro-immigrant groups are preparing for an adverse ruling in Arizona v. United States, they plan to “use the expected blow to rally immigrant communities to defend their rights, seek legal assistance and sign up to vote.”
• In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Jonathan Turley argues that because the current Court is “so small that the views of individual justices have a distorting and idiosyncratic effect on our laws,” the Court should be expanded to nineteen members.
• Joan Biskupic of Reutersprovides a behind-the-scenes look at the Court in June.
• Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is undefeated at the Supreme Court this Term.
• Looking ahead to next Term, UPI previews Florida v. Jardines, in which the Court will consider whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY