Tuesday round-up

SARAH ERICKSON-MUSCHKO JAN 29, 2013 10:21 AM

Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the D.C. Circuit’s decision on Friday holding that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional and the likelihood that the Court will review the issue. Writing for the Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston discusses the “two very distinct histories” of recess appointments and concludes that “the issue ultimately seems likely to go to the Supreme Court for a final reckoning”; he makes a similar observation in a post for this blog in which he compiles all of the pending challenges to the President’s recess appointments.  At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost also analyzes the decision and suggests that, “[w]ith more deliberation, the justices may not be willing to upend settled practice on the basis of a grammatical distinction that may or may not have been intended by the Framers two centuries ago.”

Additional coverage focused on United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which is scheduled for oral argument in March. In an academic highlight for this blog, Amanda Frost summarizes arguments raised at a symposium hosted by the Fordham Law Review that focused on the separation of powers issues raised by the case.

Briefly:

• KTVU and CBS report on Justice Sotomayor’s speech in San Francisco as part of her nationwide tour to promote her memoir, My Beloved World. Other coverage includes the Justice’s interview with Michael Krasny of KQED’s Forum (audio).
• Tasha Tsiaperas of The Dallas Morning News (subscription required) reports on Justice Scalia’s appearance with co-author Bryan Garner at Southern Methodist University to discuss their book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text.
• At Lawfare, Curtis Bradley analyzes some of the arguments in Bond v. United States, a case involving a criminal prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act scheduled for oral argument, noting that the case “raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the government’s authority to enter into treaties and constitutional principles of federalism.”
• David J. Hudson of the ABA Journal previews McBurney v. Young, a case involving a challenge under the Privilege and Immunities Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause to a “citizens only” provision in Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act under which the state has denied information requests made by out-of-state residents.  Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for February 20.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY