Wednesday round-up
on Nov 11, 2015 at 8:43 am
Yesterday’s oral arguments dominated today’s coverage of and commentary on the Court. Coverage of the class action case Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo comes from Lyle Denniston for this blog, with other coverage coming from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Tony Mauro in The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), and Richard Wolf of USA Today. Mauro also reports for the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required) that, during the oral argument, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw a veritable lifeboat to veteran advocate David Frederick, answering in detail another justice’s questions so Frederick did not have to.” And commentary comes from Daniel Fisher of Forbes, who observes that a “highly anticipated showdown over the standards for establishing a class action proved disappointing as U.S. Supreme Court justices argued more about the peculiarities of the case than broader questions of whether lawyers can bundle disparate plaintiffs together into a single class.”
Yesterday’s second case was Luis v. United States, in which the Court will consider whether a court can freeze a criminal defendant’s “untainted” assets when the defendant’s “tainted” assets have been spent or cannot be located. I covered the oral argument for this blog, with other coverage coming from NPR’s Nina Totenberg.
In the wake of last week’s announcement that the Court will review the challenges by several religious non-profits to the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate, Leslie Griffin discusses the cases at ACSblog, arguing that they “will test just how deferential the Court intends to be toward religious plaintiffs who allege a substantial burden on their religion.” And at Dubitante, Justin Sadowsky suggests that “each of the challenges share the same fundamental flaw. Specifically, the challenge only can succeed to the extent the Court allows the challengers to the law to phrase their argument as the challengers select, without questioning whether the challengers are really making a different, quite indefensible, argument.”
If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) news 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.
