Wednesday round-up

AMY HOWE JUN 8, 2016 6:35 AM

More coverage of Monday’s grants in Moore v. Texas, in which the Court will consider whether the state used the correct standard to determine whether death-row inmate Bobby James Moore is too intellectually disabled to be executed, and Buck v. Stephens, a death penalty case that has its roots in testimony that the defendant was likely to be dangerous in the future because of his race, comes from David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, who also covers the grant in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections.  Commentary on the grant in Moore comes from Lisa Soronen at the NCSL Blog and Steven Mazie for The Economist.

This blog’s Lyle Denniston reported that yesterday a Virginia school board indicated “that it will ask the Supreme Court to clarify that federal civil rights law on sex discrimination does not apply to such controversies.”  Other coverage comes from Moriah Balingit in The Washington Post.  

Briefly:

• Commentary related to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to succeed him comes from Steven Mazie, who in The Economist argues that, “[w]hile the GOP stands guard over the fortress it has erected around Mr Scalia’s empty seat, the eight justices Mr Garland hopes to join are struggling to finish a term dotted with vexed and closely divided cases.”
• At Cato at Liberty, Walter Olson discusses February’s denial of review in a challenge to “California’s practice of seizing unclaimed property after only three years of idleness with relatively minimal efforts to contact owners.”
• Catherine McKee of the National Health Law Program has an issue brief on Court’s decisions in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate, and what it means for women.
• In an op-ed for The New York Times, Christina Duffy Ponsa urges the Court to grant review in a case brought by American Samoans, who do not receive U.S. citizenship at birth, “and clarify the scope of the Citizenship Clause once and for all.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our 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.

 [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Zubik.  However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY