Author: Cormac Early

Justice Sotomayor yesterday refused to block the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage mandate.  Lyle has coverage for this blog, with further coverage coming from Pete Williams of NBC News, Cara Maresca of MSNBC, Reuters (via The New York Times), the Associated Press (via Salon), Fox News, and Ruthann Robson of Constitutional Law Prof Blog.  Justice Sotomayor's order and opinion are available here. 

Yesterday's coverage was dominated by news of the passing of Robert Bork, the former D.C. Circuit judge, Solicitor General, and nominee for the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Justice Kennedy.  Ethan Bronner of The New York Times, Stephen Miller of The Wall Street Journal, Al Kamen and Matt Schudel of The Washington Post, David Savage of The Los Angeles Times, Catalina Camia and David Jackson of USA Today, Mark Memmott of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, Tony Mauro of the Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram of Reuters, Matthew Barakat and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, and Laurence Arnold of Bloomberg News all have obituaries; commentary on Judge Bork's life and legacy comes from Jonathan Adler, Randy Barnett, and Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy, Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker, Damon W. Root of Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog, Mike Dorf at Dorf on Law, Gordon Smith at The Conglomerate, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen's Consumer Law and Policy blog, Kent Scheidegger at the Crime and Consequences blog, Paul J. Larkin Jr. at the Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog, and Roger Pilon at Cato at Liberty, while the editors of The National Review have posted their own tribute to Judge Bork, as well as collecting tributes from his friends and colleagues in an online symposium.  

Last week’s cert. grants in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8, continue to draw coverage.  After his recent visit to Princeton, which Conor covered in yesterday's round-up, Justice Scalia has been the focus of much of the recent coverage of the same-sex marriage cases.  Anna Mazarakis of The Daily Princetonian profiles Duncan Hosie, the Princeton freshman who questioned Justice Scalia about his opinions in other gay rights cases; other coverage comes from David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times and Amy Davidson of The New Yorker, while Cara Maresca of MSNBC reports on that channel’s interview with Hosie and law professor Jonathan Turley.  In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank  describes the cert. grants as a “chance for [the Court] to overrule the medieval views of Antonin Scalia,” while Alison Frankel of Reuters discusses whether the Justice should recuse himself from the same-sex marriage cases.

The Court heard argument yesterday in Chafin v. Chafin, in which it will consider whether an appeal of a district court's ruling in a case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child returns to her country of habitual residence.  Coverage of the argument comes from Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Bill Mears of CNN, Jon Swaine and Ref Sanchez of The Telegraph, Terry Baynes of Reuters, Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press, and Fox News.  Kali posted the transcript of the oral argument yesterday. 

The Court heard argument yesterday in Henderson v. United States, in which it considered whether appellate courts reviewing for plain error in criminal cases should consider the state of the law at the time of appeal or at the time of trial.  Robert Barnes has coverage of the argument for The Washington Post, while Adam Liptak also reported on the argument for The New York Times; Kali posted the argument transcript yesterday. Tomorrow's Conference, at which the Justices will consider several petitions involving same-sex marriage, continues to dominate coverage of the Court.  Lyle continues his coverage of the issues involved in the cases for this blog, with a summary of the arguments against same-sex marriage.  Other coverage comes from Adam Winkler for the Daily Beast and Melissa Griffin in her column for the San Francisco Examiner.  Erin Fuchs of Business Insider discusses Baker v. Nelson, the  Court's 1972 decision holding that there was no "substantial federal question" raised by a state denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, while Courthouse News discusses San Francisco's preparations for a possible denial of cert. in the challenge to Proposition 8 (which Lyle covered for this blog on Tuesday). 

The Court yesterday released its first opinion in an argued case this Term, deciding unanimously in United States v. Bormes that the Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for damages actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Lyle has further details for this blog, while Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters also have reports on the decision.  

The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday.  In Already LLC v. Nike, the Court considered whether a federal district court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark when the registrant promises not to enforce the mark against the plaintiff's then-existing commercial activities.  Lyle covered the argument for this blog, and Jonathan Stempel reports on the case for Reuters. The Court also heard argument in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., in which it considered whether a prevailing defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case can recover costs for a lawsuit that was not brought in bad faith.  Transcripts of both oral arguments are available here. 

The Court heard argument yesterday in two cases involving the use of drug-detection dogs.  In Florida v. Jardines, the Court considered whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected marijuana grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.  In Florida v. Harris, the Court considered whether an alert by a trained drug-detection dog provides sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle.  Transcripts of both oral arguments are available here.  Lyle covered both arguments for this blog; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR (who also previewed the case yesterday),  Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Bill Mears of CNN, David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Emily Bazelon of Slate, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Richard Wolf of USA Today, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, and Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press.      

With the Court’s November sitting beginning next week, coverage focuses on next Monday's argument in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Court will consider whether copyrighted works purchased abroad can be resold within the United States without the copyright owner's permission.  At Slate, John Villasenor summarizes the issues raised by the case, and he concludes that the Court might "make copyright law even more restrictive."  Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly reports on efforts by library associations to support petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng, while Marketa Trimble contends at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog that the statutory language at issue allows the Court to make a free policy choice between different principles of copyright exhaustion.

Justice Breyer yesterday issued a temporary stay of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had rejected a challenge to subpoenas issued by the British government for materials from an oral history project at Boston College on the Irish Republican Army.   Lyle has the details for this blog, while the Associated Press and Travis Anderson of the Boston Globe also have coverage. Other coverage of the Court continues to focus on last week's argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the use of race-based affirmative action in public universities.  In a post for the Opinionator blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse explains why her "primary reaction was one of embarrassment — for the court and also for Texas."  In his Verdict column for Justia, Michel Dorf discusses the "critical mass" issue from the oral argument, and in a follow-up post at Dorf on Law discusses the issue of narrow tailoring.  And in a column for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Jennifer Gratz -- the petitioner in Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Court struck down the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program for undergraduate admissions – also weighs in on the Fisher case.