Friday round-up
on Sep 7, 2012 at 10:13 am
On Wednesday, a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona declined to block temporarily the enforcement of the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, the only challenged provision of the law that the Supreme Court did not strike down on preemption grounds in its decision this past Term in Arizona v. United States. Coverage comes from Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), NPR, the Associated Press, JURIST, Thomson Reuters, and Politico.
As November approaches, other coverage of the Court focuses on election-related issues. On Wednesday, the Eighth Circuit (sitting en banc) blocked a provision of a Minnesota campaign finance law that required companies to disclose their campaign spending, holding that it violated the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Alison Frankel’s On the Case blog for Thomson Reuters, JURIST, Reuters, and ACSblog have coverage. Additional commentary on Citizens United and the composition of the Court comes from Michael B. Keegan at the Huffington Post.
Coverage also centers around the results of the Court’s decision this past Term in United States v. Jones, in which the Court held that the attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle and the device’s subsequent use to monitor the vehicle’s movements constituted a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy and David Kravets at WIRED have coverage of the Department of Justice’s brief on remand in Jones, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the brief, the government argues that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-site location information. And JURIST reports on the ACLU’s amicus brief in support of en banc rehearing of the Sixth Circuit’s decision holding that GPS tracking of a person’s cell phone is not a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Briefly:
- This blog continues its symposium on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin with posts by Roger Clegg, David Bernstein, and Richard Ford.
- Also at this blog, Adam Chandler highlights his forthcoming essay on Fisher, in which he argues that the Court should dismiss the case as improvidently granted.
- Lyle previews the Supreme Court’s voting rights cases of the upcoming Term, Nix v. Holder and Shelby County v. Holder, in non-legal terms for this blog.
- Also at this blog, Lyle summarizes yesterday’s decision from a federal judge striking down the Pentagon’s move to award “total veto power over meetings between Guantanamo Bay detainees and their lawyers” to the military.
