Monday round-up
Briefly:
- Fortune’s Roger Parloff previews tomorrow’s oral argument in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, in which the Court will consider whether Aereo’s streaming of broadcast television programs over the Internet violates federal copyright laws. (Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog over the weekend.)
- In the wake of recent comments by Justice Antonin Scalia disagreeing with the Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that a public official cannot recover damages for libel unless he proves that the alleged defamation was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, Kenneth Jost weighs in at Jost on Justice, arguing that the decision “rightly deserves its place in the pantheon of First Amendment landmarks.”
- At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen notes that Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the Court struck down the aggregate limits that federal election law imposed on contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees, cited scholarship that is not available in the public record.
- And in The Daily Beast, Hasen reviews (and criticizes) Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, the new book by retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
- At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Anastasia Boden discusses the amicus brief that PLF recently filed in support of certiorari in Minority Television Project v. FCC, a challenge to the FCC’s ban on advertising by for-profit entities and political candidates on public television.
- At Bloomberg BNA, Tony Dutra previews next week’s oral arguments in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, in which the Court will consider whether a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under Section 271(a).
- In the weekly Standard, Adam White examines Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments – made at the oral arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate – on Congress’s delegation of power in the ACA to the Department of Health and Human Services, and he suggests that courts can “vindicate constitutional design simply in the way that they interpret statutes and review agencies’ implementation of federal statutes—statutes such as the Affordable Care Act.”
Send us your links! We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have a recently published (in the last two or three days) article, blog post, or op-ed related to the Supreme Court that you would like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY