Monday round-up

AMY HOWE JAN 19, 2015 9:04 AM

The Court is not in session today because of the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday.  But before they left for the holiday weekend, the Justices made big news with the announcement that they would review the challenges to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding four states’ bans on same-sex marriage.  Coverage of that decision comes from this blog’s Lyle Denniston,  Nina Totenberg of NPR (also here), Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal (who has a second story for the Journal as well), Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and the Associated Press (via The Gainesville Sun).  Commentary and analysis of Friday’s order come from Richard Socarides of The New Yorker, Ilya Shapiro at Forbes, Garrett Epps of The Atlantic, Kenneth Jost of Jost on Justice, Steve Sanders at ACSblog, Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Brianne Gorod and Judith Schaeffer at The New Republic, Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed, Rick Hasen at his Election Law Blog, and Arthur Leonard at his eponymous blog.  At Time, Sam Frizell looks at what five Justices on the Court have written or said about the same-sex marriage issue.       

Tomorrow the Court will hear oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, in which it will consider the constitutionality of a rule that prohibits candidates for judgeships from personally soliciting campaign contributions.  Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from Richard Wolf of USA Today.  Commentary comes from David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman in an op-ed for USA Today, from Garrett Epps in The Atlantic, and from the Center for Public Integrity.

Briefly:

• At Talking Points Memo, Sahil Kapur suggests that “[r]emarks in 2010 by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) days before the enactment of Obamacare may weaken the premise of” King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase health insurance on an exchange established by the federal government.
• At Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck covers Friday’s grants in two other cases, Mata v. Holder and Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
• At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Angela Morrison analyzes last week’s oral argument in Mach Mining v. EEOC.
• At the Appellate Practice Blog of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, Lisa Soronen discusses last week’s opinion in T-Mobile South v. City of Roswell, concluding that “overall local governments won” in the case.
• At JURIST, Caitlin Borgmann discusses abortion cases in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits that she believes “are likely to end up before the Supreme Court.” “If so,” she urges the Court to “clarify that, even under current abortion precedent, abortion exceptionalism is inappropriate in either case.”
• At the University of New Mexico Law School, Kannon Shanmugam discusses (among other things) moot courts, oral arguments, the Solicitor General’s office, and amicus briefs with Dawinder Sidhu.
• At Verdict, Vikram Amar analyzes the legislature’s brief in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and concludes that it “fails to demonstrate that the [commission’s] creation and powers violate federal law.”

 

[Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Mach Mining.  However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY