Yesterday the court heard argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the justices will decide whether Ohio’s voter-roll-maintenance process violates federal voter-registration laws. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that the justices “appeared divided” and that “[t]wo justices close to the court’s ideological center, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, appeared most interested in the pragmatic implications of protecting voting rights while updating voter rolls.” Additional coverage of the argument comes from Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Stephen Dinan for The Washington Times, Adam Liptak for The New York Times and Richard Wolf for USA Today. Commentary on the case comes from Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, who notes that “the majority, whichever way it decides, will be making a (perhaps unconscious) judgment about which of the two aims [of the laws at issue in the case]—participation by the eligible or exclusion of the ineligible—is more urgent, both generally and now.”
On Tuesday the justices heard argument in a Fourth Amendment case, Collins v. Virginia, in which the justices considered the scope of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog; her analysis was first published at Howe on the Court.
Briefly:
We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY