Wednesday round-up

Coverage of the Court yesterday focused on cases that may soon come before the Justices. At this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on decisions of the First and Fifth Circuits involving cellphone privacy: the First Circuit ruled that the government must obtain a warrant to search the contents of an arrestees cellphone, while the Fifth Circuit ruled that the government does not need a warrant to require service providers to turn over data that tracks the locations of calls made from a cellphone. At the Constitutional Accountability Center, David H. Gans discusses what he describes as the next big test of corporate personhood, in the challenges to the Affordable Care Acts requirement that employers provide their employees with health insurance that includes access to contraceptives — an issue on which the Third and Tenth Circuits have reached conflicting conclusions. (Lyle reported on those cases here and here.)

Briefly:

• Here at SCOTUSblog, Lyle reports that the couple seeking to adopt the child at the center of this past Terms adoption case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, have filed their response to the birth fathers request to have Chief Justice John Roberts stay a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court ordering a family court in that state to finalize the childs adoption.
• Also here, Fabrizio di Piazza interviews Geoffrey Stone in a second segment of their conversation for SCOTUSblog on Camera.
• At The National Law Journal, Rick Hasen discusses the recent announcement by the federal government that, in the wake of last Terms ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the Voting Rights Acts preclearance requirement, it would ask a federal court to subject Texas to the preclearance requirement under Section 3 of the Act, known as the bail in provision. Hasen argues that, although the decision is risky, both politically and legally, given the few alternatives to protect minority voters, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder probably figures the risks are worth taking.
• At Reuters, Elizabeth B. Wydra expresses her support for limits on campaign contributions, an issue that the Justices will consider in next Terms McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, and she cites a Tumblr that displays every mention of corruption in the writings of the founding fathers.

[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on anamicusbrief in support of the respondent in Fisherand in support of the respondents inShelby County.]