Friday round-up
on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:28 am
Coverage of the Court continues to focus on the health care decision, with commentators primarily discussing the substance of the Medicaid ruling. Writing at both Dorf on Law and Verdict, Neil Buchanan argues that if the Court’s reasoning behind its Medicaid ruling were extended to other areas of law, “this new and expanded concept of coercion-versus-consent could revolutionize the American legal system.” Additional commentary on the Medicaid decision comes from Renee Parsons at the Huffington Post. Nicolaus Mills, writing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, focuses more broadly on Chief Justice Roberts’ role in the case.
Other coverage continues to discuss Justice Scalia’s interview with Piers Morgan, which Cormac featured in yesterday’s round-up. Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Robert Barnes at The Washington Post, Sam Favate at the WSJ Law Blog, and Bill Mears at CNN all have coverage, with additional reporting at UPI, Reuters, and The Hill. Commentary comes from The American Prospect and The Los Angeles Times.
The Court’s 2010 opinion in Citizens United v. FEC was the target of a New York Times Magazine piece, in which Matt Bai argues that Citizens United “was more incremental than transformational” in spurring the recent increases seen in outside campaign money, subsequently concluding that “the accepted narrative around Citizens United is, at best, overly simplistic. And in some respects, it’s just plain wrong.” Doug Schoen, writing at Forbes, not only pushes back against Bai’s argument but also draws out broader lessons to be learned from the case. Rick Hasen provides additional criticism at Election Law Blog, arguing that Bai’s piece “ignor[es] the effects of the law on political behavior.”
Briefly:
- This blog’s symposium on next Term’s Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum continues, with posts by Ingrid Wuerth and Beth Stephens.
- At the Huffington Post, Ginny Sloan looks at the Court’s opinion in Arizona v. United States, which invalidated much of Arizona’s controversial immigration statute, as one in “a series of ongoing tugs of war between the federal government and states” over immigration enforcement.
- The Indiana Lawyer explores the implications of this Term’s Southern Union Co. v. United States, in which the Court applied Apprendi to the imposition of criminal fines (h/t Sentencing Law and Policy Blog).
- Writing at Washington Monthly, Daniel Luzer discusses Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, next Term’s affirmative action case, and considers the potential consequences of a “world without affirmative action.”
