Tuesday round-up
on Oct 18, 2011 at 9:37 am
The Court granted certiorari in four cases yesterday. Lyle Denniston of this blog (here and here) has two posts on yesterday’s order list, as do Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, Joan Biskupic of USA Today, and JURIST.
One of yesterday’s grants was United States v. Alvarez, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors. Greg Stohr of Bloomberg has coverage of the grant, as do Adam Liptak of the New York Times, Bill Mears of CNN, James Vicini of Reuters, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, David Kravets of Wired, Ariane de Vogue of ABC News, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Michael Doyle of McClatchy, and Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor. And at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh analyzes some of the approaches the Court might take to resolve the case.
In two of yesterday’s other granted cases, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Rajoub, the Court will consider whether corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights violations that occur overseas. Greg Stohr of Bloomberg has coverage of the grant, as do Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Adam Liptak of the New York Times, and the WSJ Law Blog. At the Huffington Post, Mike Sacks discusses the cases and posits that it may be “quite odd” for the Court to extend First Amendment protection to corporate persons under Citizens United, but to prohibit corporate liability for crimes against humanity.
Elsewhere, coverage focuses on the Justices themselves. At the New York Times, Adam Liptak examines the judicial philosophy of Justice Alito, describing the Justice as both “alert to injustice” and “a careful legal craftsman” – two qualities that “sometimes . . . collide.” Mark Walsh of Education Week examines Justice Thomas’s willingness to “carve out a solitary stance” on issues including cases involving schools and the rights of children. At the Atlantic, Andrew Cohen implores leaders to stop “venting their impotence on the lone remaining branch of government that still works most of the time: the judiciary.” And in the wake of protests by the Occupy Wall Street movement at the Court, Dahlia Lithwick of Slate cautions the protesters that “if you want to get mad at the Supreme Court for the role it has played in insulating and empowering American corporations, realize that Citizens United is largely a symbolic target.”
Briefly:
- At Just Enrichment, Joshua Matz of this blog reviews Five Chiefs, the recent memoir by retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
- Also at Just Enrichment, Adam Chandler warns of “potentially fatal” procedural defects that “should make the Court think twice” before granting cert. in the Texas affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.
