Friday round-up
on Jun 28, 2013 at 11:08 am
Court watchers continue to focus on Wednesday’s same-sex marriage decisions: Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Court held that the sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend the initiative on appeal, and United States v. Windsor, in which the Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Recent coverage of both decisions comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Chantal Valery of Agence France-Presse, and Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed; Eric Restuccia and Aaron Lindstrom offer commentary as part of this blog’s symposium on the decisions.
Coverage of Windsor comes from Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal, who describes the decision as “a major civil rights turning point,” and Michael Bobelian for Forbes, while commentary comes from Deirdre M. Bowen at ACSblog, Reason.com’s Damon W. Root, Roger Parloff of Fortune, Katharine Baker at the IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog, and the Committee for Justice at its blog.
Coverage of Perry comes from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who reports on the legal strategy that “culminated in victory” for same-sex marriage in California, and Howard Mintz at the San Jose Mercury News. Commentary and analysis come from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg (here and here), Kevin Snider at JURIST, and Fred Woocher at the Election Law Blog, who discusses what the voting alignment suggests about the Justices’ views of the merits of the case. (Hat tip: Rick Hasen and Justin Levitt.)
Other commentary focuses on this week’s decisions in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court struck down the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions must comply with the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court ordered a lower court to take a more exacting look at the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process. The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice responds to the decision in Shelby County, while Atiba R. Ellis discusses the case for ACSblog, arguing that “[t]he consequences of this premature post-racial decision will likely define — negatively — the scope of voting rights for the 21st century.” At The Root, Sherrilyn A. Ifill urges Congress to “create a new coverage formula to ensure that minority voters are protected.” At the IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog, Carolyn Shapiro compares Shelby County to the same-sex marriage cases, while at Nahmod Law, Sheldon Nahmod compares Shelby County to Fisher.
Commentary on Fisher includes a post at SALTLAW blog by a group of Latino and Latina law professors, who respond to a post by David Bernstein as part of this blog’s post-decision symposium on the case. And at The Root, Gay McDougall describes the history of advocacy leading up to the Court’s reaffirmation that race-conscious affirmative action programs are subject to strict scrutiny review, though the Court stopped short of outlawing such programs altogether.
Other coverage focuses on the Term and the Court more generally. The ACLU has issued its annual summary of the Court’s civil rights decisions, while in her Opinionator column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse explains why, in her view, the decisions this week “go far toward defining the Roberts court.” At the Constitutional Accountability Center, Doug Kendall argues that “the Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of corporate America has become one of the biggest stories, if not THE biggest story, of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.” And at the IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog, Carolyn Shapiro also looks at the Court from a business perspective. At The Economist, Steven Mazie notes that the Court this Term “struck down an unusually large number of statutes,” notably Section 3 of DOMA and Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. And Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic argues that Justice Kennedy’s “centrality to the Court, and thus to the sweep of our law, was never more evident than it was this week,” while Richard Wolf also analyzes Justice Kennedy’s “crucial” role on the Court for USA Today.
Briefly:
- At PrawfsBlawg, Will Baude covers United States v. Kebodeaux, in which the Court held that the registration requirement in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is a valid exercise of Congress’s powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
- On his blog, William D. Goren breaks down University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, in which the Court narrowly construed the scope of Title VII’s retaliation and employer liability rules.
- For this blog, Lyle Denniston updates coverage on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
- At Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen concludes that, “[n]o one should be shocked that having a majority of conservative Justices on the Supreme Court makes a difference in the election law field.”
- Finally, after a busy week, yesterday morning the Court added new cases to next Term’s docket. Lyle Denniston has coverage of those grants here and here; other coverage comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the American Association of Law Schools as an amicus in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and were among the counsel to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner et al., who filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Shelby County v. Holder. The firm’s Tejinder Singh was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.
If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.
