Tuesday round-up
In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports on a new study by Richard Lazarus of Harvard Law School, who chronicles how the Court has been “quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice.” “The revisions,” Lazarus notes, “include ‘truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning.’” Jonathan Adler weighs in on the issue at The Volokh Conspiracy, acknowledging that “[m]istakes will happen, and they should be corrected” but also urging the Court to “be more open and transparent about the changes that are made.”
Briefly:
- On Saturday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at the marriage of Stephen Wiesenfeld, whose case she argued (and won) at the Supreme Court nearly forty years ago. Robert Barnes has the story for The Washington Post.
- At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re notes recent events, including errors in two recent dissenting opinions, and suggests that “in small but meaningful ways, the Court is being forced to acknowledge its own fallibility.”
- In Sports Illustrated, Ryan Rodenberg and Jon Wertheim recount the history of the legal proceedings that have recently culminated in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s filing of a cert. petition asking the Court to decide whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which limits sports betting in the United States, violates New Jersey’s right to decide whether sports betting should be available there.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY