Author: Conor McEvily

Yesterday’s coverage of the Court largely focused on upcoming cases the Court is expected to hear this Term. Discussing the upcoming case Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Court will address the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle discusses the argument, advanced by the supporters of same-sex marriage, that the sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have no right to defend the state law in federal court.  “It’s an argument they may come to regret,” Egelko notes, adding that if it succeeds, “some legal analysts say the ruling may be so narrow that it benefits only the two couples who filed the suit, leaving Prop. 8 in effect for the rest of the state.”

As Lyle reported for this blog (and as Sarah noted in yesterday’s round-up), on Monday Justice Ginsburg denied a nursing home company’s request to stay the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board order.  The stay application stemmed from a challenge to the President’s authority to make recess appointments; after Justice Ginsburg denied the application, the company responded by asking to have its application referred to Justice Scalia.  In addition to the coverage provided in yesterday’s round-up, Mara Lee of the Hartford (Ct.) Courant, Lauren Smith of Roll Call, Vince Coglianese of The Daily Caller, and Damon W. Root at Reason.com all provide additional coverage. 

Yesterday’s press coverage continued to focus on last Friday’s decision by the D.C. Circuit holding that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional and the prospect that the Supreme Court will review the issue.  In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin predicts that the “Obama administration will surely challenge the . . . ruling—either before the full court of appeals or in the Supreme Court.  Like the health-care decision, this one is so terrible that it might stir even some Republican judges to overturn it.”  And at the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen argues that “[i]f the Supreme Court does agree to review the constitutionality of recess appointments, it would do well to dismiss the case on [political question] grounds.” 

Yesterday was a fairly active day for Court watchers, with the Justices issuing an opinion in one argued case, and hearing oral arguments in two others. By a vote of seven to two, the Court in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida held that a floating houseboat is not a “vessel” for purposes of 1 U.S.C. § 3, and therefore federal maritime jurisdiction is not triggered, because – except for the fact that it floats – nothing about a houseboat suggests that it is intended to transport people or things over water.  At this blog Lyle Denniston provides a comprehensive analysis of the decision along with an explanation in “Plain English”; other coverage comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Nina Totenberg of NPR, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Michael Doyle and Ina Paiva Cordle of McClatchy Newspapers, David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Matt Krantz of USA Today, Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, and Jane Musgrave of the Palm Beach Post.

Wednesday round-up Yesterday was a busy day at the Court, with the Justices releasing two opinions in argued cases and hearing oral argument in two others. In yesterday’s first opinion, Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the flow of water from an improved portion into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act.  David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire, Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service, William Buzbee of the Center for Progressive Reform, and the Associated Press all have coverage.  And at the Daily Writ, Kedar Bhatia notes that although Justice Alito concurred in the judgment, he did not write an opinion explaining that decision.  Bhatia adds that “[c]oncurrences and dissents without opinion used to be fairly common, but in recent years they have become increasingly rare.”

Most of yesterday’s coverage focused on the Chief Justice’s year-end report on the federal judiciary, which Lyle covered for this blog.  Other coverage came from David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, all of whom note that the Chief Justice’s emphasis was on frugality, and that he repeated his call to fill vacancies on the federal bench.

Briefly: At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston looks at the Court’s constitutional law dockets for 2012 and 2013 and concludes that, “[a]s the New Year unfolds, the [Court] switches its center of attention from constitutional architecture to constitutional rights.” C-SPAN previews an upcoming “Book TV” episode that includes...

Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the Court and gun control. At Cato@Liberty, Trevor Burrus discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covered in yesterday’s round-up) striking down an Illinois law which banned the carrying of concealed weapons in public.  Burrus predicts that, “rather than risk the Supreme Court affirming the ruling, Illinois will impose a severely limited permitting system.”  In The New York Times, Adam Liptak also discusses the Seventh Circuit’s decision, describing it as an “exception to the trend” of “vanishingly few” successful challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun.  And at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin discusses the history of the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and observes that “[t]he full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs.”

In the wake of Friday’s school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, much of the coverage of the Court focused on the Court and gun control. At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston argues that, “[i]f Americans are persuaded that the courts are getting the Second Amendment wrong, and are convinced that cutting back on the Amendment’s scope is a way to reduce gun violence, they have it within their political power to demand that legislatures apply that Amendment sparingly, and they have it within their citizen power to try to get the Constitution amended.”  And at Think Progress, Ian Millhiser argues that “[t]ntil the Supreme Court removes the special protections accorded to handguns . . . lawmakers will have to fight the most dangerous weapon in the nation with one arm tied behind their backs.”

The Court’s announcement last week that it would review the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor and the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry continues to inspire coverage and commentary. As Lyle Denniston reported for this blog, yesterday the Court appointed Harvard law professor Vicki C. Jackson to argue in Windsor that the Court lacks authority to rule on whether DOMA is constitutional.  Additional coverage of the appointment comes from Terry Baynes of Thomson Reuters and Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press (via the Huffington Post).