Wednesday round-up
on Nov 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Yesterday the Court granted four cases from the Justices’ November 26 Conference. Two of the cases – Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Store v. Sebelius – were consolidated for one hour of oral argument, during which the Court will consider challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide their employees with health insurance that includes access to birth control. The Court also agreed to review Wood v. Moss, a case involving legal immunity for Secret Service agents who are protecting the president, and Clark v. Rameker, a case involving the status of inherited IRAs in bankruptcy. Lyle covered all four grants for this blog yesterday; Matthew Porny did the same for JURIST.Coverage focused on the grants in the contraceptive mandate cases came from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Bill Mears of CNN, and Richard Wolf of USA Today. In an op-ed for CNN, Elizabeth Wydra urges the Court to uphold the mandate, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions striking it down turn “first principles of religious freedom, as well as fundamental tenets of corporate law, on their head.” And at Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck predicts that, although the Court “can reach the constitutional issue of whether Obamacare is inconsistent with the First Amendment,” the cases are “more likely to be decided on narrow regulatory and statutory grounds.”
Other coverage of, and commentary on, yesterday’s grant in Wood v. Moss came from Richard Wolf of USA Today and from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, who suggests that the decision to grant review “doesn’t bode well” for the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing the case against the Secret Service agents to proceed.
Briefly:
- At the Squire Sanders frESH blog, Robert Cheren reports on Florida’s filing of a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in its water war with Georgia.
- At the Maryland Appellate Blog, Michael Wein reports on a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit that, in his view, could set up the Court’s review of issues related to judicial recusals.
We’ll take a day off from the round-up tomorrow in honor of Thanksgiving. We’re grateful for all of our readers, but especially for those of you who send us links every day. Thank you!
