Thursday round-up

Yesterday’s coverage focused on the full Court’s refusal to stay the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board order in the wake of a ruling by the D.C. Circuit that President Obamas recess appointments to that board were unconstitutional. As Conor noted in yesterday’sround-up, on Monday HealthBridge Management sought a stay from Justice Ginsburg; when she denied the companys application, HealthBridge then unsuccessfully refiled the application with Justice Scalia, who referred the application to the full Court. Lyle has coverage forthis blog; other coverage comes from Marcia Coyle of theBlog of Legal Times, Deepak Gupta of theConsumer Law and Policy Blog, and Lawrence Hurley ofReuters.

Other coverage focuses on the upcoming argument inMaryland v. King, in which the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes. Arianne de Vogue ofABC Newshas coverage, as does David Kravets ofWired.

Other coverage focuses on Justice Sotomayor. Jordan Teicher ofNew York Magazine(h/t Howard Bashman) reports that the Justice has changed her mind about allowing cameras in the courtroom, while Adam Liptak of TheNew York Timesreports on some controversy surrounding the Justice’s participation in a Pepsi-sponsored event for women who attended Yale.

Meanwhile, this blog’ssymposiumon gene patenting continues with contributions fromChristopher Holman,Kevin Noonan,Rob Merges, andRobert Cook-Deegan.

Briefly:

• In her Opinionator column for TheNew York Times, Linda Greenhouse discussesKnox v. SEIU, last Term’s decision in which the Court limited the ability of unions to impose special assessments on their members for political activities without their affirmative consent.
• AtBalkinization, David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center discusses an amicus brief filed by constitutional law scholars inShelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
• In herVerdictcolumn for Justia, Sherry F. Colb discusses the Fifth Amendment issues raised bySalinas v. Texas, in which the Court will consider whether a suspect has the right to remain silent before he has been arrested or receivedMirandawarnings. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the co-counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
• At TheHuffington Post,Fred Wertheimerdiscusses cert. petitions pending before the Court in two campaign finance cases —Danielczyk v. United States, a challenge to the ban on direct corporate campaign spending in the Federal Campaign Finance Act, andMcCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a challenge to the limit on total contributions by an individual to candidates, political parties, and Political Action Committees (PACs).