Wednesday round-up

CONOR MCEVILY OCT 3, 2012 10:19 AM

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in two cases.  In Kloeckner v. Solis, the Court considered which court – the Federal Circuit or a U.S. district court – has jurisdiction when the Merit Systems Protection Board decides a case involving both disputed termination and unlawful discrimination claims by a federal employee, without determining the merits of the discrimination claim.  In United States v. Bormes, the Court considered whether the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for damages actions alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters covered the argument in Bormes.  Kali provided links to both transcripts here.

Today the Court will also hear oral argument in two cases.  In Johnson v. Williams, the Court will consider whether a federal habeas petitioner’s claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” when the state court denied relief without expressly ruling on a federal-law basis for the claim.  Lyle previewed the argument for this blog; Kent Scheidegger also discusses the case at Crime and Consequences.  In Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, the Court will consider whether government actions that create temporary but recurring floods constitute a “taking” for which the government must provide compensation.  Lyle previewed the argument for this blog, while Ilya Somin also has additional coverage at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Monday’s oral arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum continued to generate press yesterday.  Coverage of the arguments comes from Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal, Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, Alison Frankel at Thomson Reuters, Steven D. Schwinn at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Trey Childress at PrawfsBlawg, Julia Zebley at JURIST, Beverly Mann at Angry Bear, and Jeremy Leaming at ACSblog, while commentary comes from Bruce Ramsey at the Seattle Times.  Kali posted pictures taken at the Court after the Kiobel arguments on this blog.

Briefly:

• In an interview with NPR’s Talk of the Nation, David Savage discusses the Court and the public’s perception of its work.
• The Associated Press (via USA Today) reports that on Monday the Court refused to hear a Florida man’s attempt to challenge the use of full-body scanners at airports.
• At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein discusses the “single-issue libertarian case for Romney” based on the “mathematical certainty that Obama-appointed justices will [overturn] critical issues of the rights of individuals against government.”
• At ACSblog, Jeremy Leaming argues that a recent paper by the American Constitution Society “spells out why progressives should be really concerned about the Supreme Court, if they are not already.”
• At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps discusses the prospect that Justice Alito could take Justice Scalia’s place as the “dominant ideological figure on the Court’s right wing.”
• Writing at the Constitution Daily, this blog’s Lyle Denniston discusses the “rift among the justices” over the health care decision and notes that “observers will be watching closely as the new term unfolds for signs that the rift will continue.”
• In a legal scholarship highlight for this blog, Professor Richard Lazarus discusses his recent paper on the National Environmental Policy Act’s record in the Supreme Court.
• The Court has released audio recordings of its opinion announcements for the 2011 Term, including the opinion announcements for the health care cases.  Oyez Today and Ariane de Vogue of ABCNews have coverage.
• At ACSblog, Jeremy Leaming remembers Justice Thurgood Marshall, who joined the Court forty-five years ago yesterday.
• The FedSoc Blog covered a recent talk given by Justice Scalia about his new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, co-authored with Bryan Garner.
• At BuzzFeed, Chris Geidner suggests twelve reasons to pay attention to the Court this Term.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY