Monday round-up

As coverage of the health care decision finally winds down, discussion of the Courts next Term begins to ramp up.

On the health care front, Michael Bobelian atForbesanalyzes the Chief Justices opinion and concludes that, although the Affordable Care Act largely survived, the reasoning behind the decision represents a significant victory for conservative jurisprudence a duality, Bobelian suggests, that resembles Marbury v. Madison. At Politico, Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein report that both Romney and Obama have had success using the Court to fire up their political bases.

As for next Term, asthis blogs Lyle Denniston reported on Friday, two cert. petitions were filed last week challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. JURISTandReutersalso have coverage. In addition, theWashington Posts Robert Barnes reports on a cert. petition (which Conor also covered in the round-up last Wednesday) that asks the Court to find constitutional protection for the insanity defense. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the petitioner in the case.]

As Lyle reported last week, the Chief Justice has temporarily stayed a Maryland Court of Appeals decision holding that the collection of DNA samples from arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment. Yvonne Wenger of theBaltimore Sunalso has coverage.

Briefly:

• At Non Curat Lex, Kyle Graham summarizes several of the memos (now residing in the Reagan Presidential Library) that the Chief Justice authored while working in the White House counsels office.
• AtJost on Justice, Kenneth Jost discusses the Courtsrepeated efforts to avoid the difficult constitutional issues surrounding the FCCs indecency rule.
• At theWall Street Journal Law Blog, Chelsea Phipps discusses the prospect that thegovernment may have a more difficult time regulating false or misleading commercial speech in the wake ofUnited States v. Alvarez.