At Verdict, Michael Dorf echoes Justice Elena Kagan’s skepticism in the recent oral argument in Heffernan v. City of Paterson about the possibility of sharply distinguishing (for First Amendment purposes) between rules and reasons. On his own blog, Dorf discusses the legal scholarship relevant to the case.
At Vox, David Roberts explains Monday’s ruling that the Federal Power Act provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators’ compensation of demand response bids, asserting that it will “give demand response — a way of coordinating people to not use energy at certain times — a huge boost, which in turn will help reduce carbon emissions and the price of electricity.” At the Guarini Center, Matthew Christiansen suggests that, although “the decision is, first and foremost, a significant victory for the FERC and its efforts to support demand response, it also goes a long way toward clarifying the legal regime governing the FERC’s exercise of its jurisdiction more generally.”
Coverage of Murr v. Wisconsin, a regulatory takings case in which the Court recently granted review, comes from Bruce Vielmetti, who looks at the human side of the case for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; from Chuck Rupnow for the (Eau Claire, Wisc.) Leader-Telegram; and Andrew McIntyre at Law 360. Commentary comes from Luke Wake, who at NFIB argues that “government cannot manipulate property rights out of existence.”
Briefly:
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Heffernan and was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Friedrichs, but I am not affiliated with the firm.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY