Thursday round-up

By Cormac Early
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:15 am

Yesterday the Court released its opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, holding that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to conduct that took place overseas. Kali collected early coverage of the opinion in her evening round-up; further coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire, Bill Mears of CNN, Ariane de Vogue of ABC News, Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal, Ilya Shapiro of Cato at Liberty, and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog. Commentary on the decision comes from Katie Redford at this blog, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, and the editorial board of The New York Times.

The Court also released its opinion in Missouri v. McNeely, in which it held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in drunk-driving cases sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. Lyle covers the opinion for this blog, with other coverage and commentary coming from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Bill Mears of CNN, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters, The Associated Press (via Business Insider), Orin Kerr of The Volokh Conspiracy, Douglas A. Berman of The Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Damon W. Root of Reason, Steve Shapiro of the ACLU’s Blog of Rights, Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences, and TMZ.

The Court also heard argument yesterday in two cases. In United States v. Kebodeaux, the Court is considering whether Congress can punish a person convicted of a sex offense for failure to register as a sex offender, when he completed his criminal sentence before the enactment of the registration provision. In yesterday’s other argument, Salinas v. Texas, the Court is considering whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a defendant’s right to remain silent before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights. Lyle has coverage for this blog, with further reporting coming from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Dominic Perella of MSNBC,  and Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press (via The Washington Post).    [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in Salinas.]

As Conor noted in yesterday’s round-up, Justice Scalia’s remarks during a speech on Monday have garnered attention.  The Justice told a group of students that “key provisions of the Voting Rights Act had evolved from an emergency response to racial discrimination in 1965 to an ‘embedded’ form of ‘racial preferment.’”  Other coverage comes from Spencer Overton at The Huffington Post and Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo.

Briefly:

• At ACSblog, Mary Bonauto and Paul Smith discuss the federalism arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor.
• Ilya Somin of The Volokh Conspiracy discusses the Court’s denial of certiorari in Ilagan v. Ungacta, a challenge to a property taking under the Public Use clause.
• Steven D. Schwinn of the Constitutional Law Prof Blog reports on Tuesday’s argument in American Trucking Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, in which the Court is considering whether a federal law deregulating the trucking industry contains an unexpressed “market participant” exception allowing a municipal government to take action that would otherwise conflict with the federal law.
• Writing for Dorf at Law, Sherry F. Colb discusses the issues raised by Florida v. Jardines, in which the Court held that a dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.