Friday round-up

RACHEL SACHS JUL 13, 2012 9:43 AM

Once again, the health care cases continue to receive considerable media attention. In an issue brief for the Heritage Foundation, Nina Owcharenko argues that the Court’s decision “to strike down the Medicaid mandate on the states as unconstitutionally coercive . . . likely puts the law on a faster pace to collapse.” On the other hand, in an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun, James Burdick contends that the Court’s decision has “cleared the way” for universal health care.

Other coverage focuses on the substance of the health care decision. Commentary on the Court’s Commerce Clause reasoning comes from Neil Siegel at Balkinization and Randy Barnett at Reason (video). Jonathan Adler, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy and again with Nathaniel Stewart at the National Review Online, argues that the decision will have “limited doctrinal implications.” Meanwhile, at Education Week, Mark Walsh considers the decision’s potential relevance for challenges to federal education statutes. Tim Lynch of Cato@Liberty looks at Justice Thomas’s opinion in the health care cases and concludes that, “for anyone who takes seriously the fact that the Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, there is one Supreme Court Justice that consistently stands head and shoulders above the rest–and that’s Clarence Thomas.” And finally, commentators continue to discuss the Chief Justice’s opinion at the New Republic, the Volokh Conspiracy (here and here), and SCOTUSreport.

The Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC also continues to garner commentary. At SCOTUSreport, John O. McGinnis has a third post in his four-part series on the decision in which he argues that it “has not released a floodgate of for-profit corporate independent expenditures.” And in an op-ed for The New York Times, Benjamin Sachs contends that the decision created both an asymmetry between the ability of unions and corporations to engage in political spending and potential First Amendment problems regarding public pension funds.

Briefly:

• At Bloomberg Businessweek, Greg Stohr looks ahead to the major cases being argued in the next Term.
• Michael Ramsey and Donald Childress have posts as part of this blog’s continuing symposium on next Term’s Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
• Writing at Constitution Daily, Lyle more closely examines the legal consequences of the Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States, in which it invalidated several provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
• Justice Ginsburg delivered a lecture (video) as part of Wake Forest University School of Law’s Venice study abroad program.
• Justice Kennedy spoke at the Aspen Institute about the Constitution and the Court, in an event moderated by Akhil Amar and Elliot Gerson.
• The Los Angeles Times reports on the introduction by Senator Jim Webb of a new bill, the Military Service Integrity Act, in response to the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Alvarez, striking down the Stolen Valor Act. The bill would criminalize lies about military service that are made to secure tangible benefits or personal gain.
• Responding to posts (which Conor featured in Wednesday’s round-up) on what the health care decision might signify about conservative attitudes toward judicial review, Ilya Somin – blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy – argues that the main point of distinction is over “what kinds of legislation should be treated deferentially and what kinds should not.”

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY