Thursday round-up
Coverage and commentary related to last week’s decision striking down two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion comes from Oyez, which adds analysis of the decision to its Body Politic site. At his eponymous blog, Ed Mannino suggests that “particular emphasis in future cases will be placed upon the factual findings relating to burdens and benefits made by the trial court. Thus, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will review more abortion cases in the near future, but will, in all probability, simply vacate and remand other cases for reconsideration.” And at Vox, Caleb Lewis concludes that the ruling is “a pretty significant victory for pro-choice advocates . . . in the immediate sense,” but he adds that the “long-term implications of the decision are less clear.”
Briefly:
- In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that a“letter sent by the U.S. solicitor general’s office alerting the Supreme Court to an error in one of its recent opinions is shedding new light on what happens when the court messes up.”
- At Crimmigration, Kelley Keefer and Linus Chan analyze the Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States.
- At The Federalist, Ilya Shapiro notes that the just-ended Term “confirmed a very real phenomenon: the Obama administration, by historical standards, has done exceedingly poorly before the Supreme Court.”
- At Cato at Liberty, Shapiro and Randal Meyer discuss the amicus brief that Cato filed recently, urging the Court to grant review in the case of a ruling that “deprived Stahl York Avenue Company of its property rights by designating” apartment buildings “as landmarks . . . despite a previous ruling that these exact buildings lacked any architectural or cultural merit worth preserving.”
- In The New York Times, Carl Hulse speaks with Jack Abramoff, reporting that “the former superlobbyist . . . fears the court’s unanimous decision to toss out the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the ex-governor of Virginia, reflects a regrettable innocence about how things work in the real world.”
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that “[i]t’s worth remembering that today’s conservative justices are a good deal more conservative than the liberal justices are liberal.”
- Akin Gump looks back at the just-ended Term’s Indian law cases, contending that the Term “can only be considered a success for tribal advocates.”
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, was among the counsel to the petitioners in Dollar General Stores v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, one of the Indian law cases mentioned in Akin Gump’s report. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY