Coverage of next week’s oral arguments in the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy for some immigrants comes from Lyle Denniston, who previewed the case for this blog. At Notice and Comment, Michael Kagan argues that, “[i]n trying for a dagger to the heart of Obama’s immigration policies, Texas could end up with nothing but a pin prick.” And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an overview of the case in which he contends that the “real issues in this case turn of two entirely separate disagreements, one abstract and philosophical, and the other much more real, between Texas and the federal government.”
Coverage related to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to succeed him comes from Tony Mauro, who in The National Law Journal (subscription or registration may be required) reports that Chief Justice John Roberts, “[i]n his first public remarks since the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, . . . steered clear of the ensuing controversy, but lamented” Scalia’s February 13 death. Relatedly, Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “[h]ome healthcare companies are worried the eight-member Supreme Court won’t consider a case on whether workers are eligible for overtime pay” because of the prospect that they might split four to four on the case. In The Washington Post, Amber Phillips reports that, “[a]s the Court’s vacancy enters its second month, Republicans now appear to be saying” that the Court can function with just eight Justices; in a second article, Phillips explains why President Barack Obama may still be trying to get Garland confirmed, despite what appear to be long odds.
Commentary comes from Senator Charles Grassley, who in The Des Moines Register outlines what he describes as “the absurdity of the argument that somehow the federal judiciary is debilitated without a ninth Supreme Court justice for a brief period of time.” More commentary comes from Gregory Diskant, who in an op-ed for The Washington Post argues that President Barack Obama “should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent”; if that date passes without action from the Senate, he continues, “Obama could conclude that it has waived its right to participate in the process, and he could exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court.” At News, Reviews, and Views, Roland Nikles discusses both Diskant’s op-ed and an op-ed by Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy, concluding that the “real issue” between the two is whether the Senate has “‘a right and opportunity’ to give advice and consent (Diskant)” or instead whether “the Senate’s consent [is] a condition precedent to the President’s power to appoint (Somin).”
Briefly:
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