Author: Jay Willis

Marcia Coyle at the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the Citizens United decision on cases pending in the federal courts, noting that courts in two high-profile cases have already ordered supplemental briefing on the relevance of Citizens United. Coyle also discusses several state-level cases that may be affected by Citizens. As Congress continues to explore legislative responses to the decision, ACSBlog also has this post on today’s Senate hearing on the  case.

Commentators continue to weigh in on last Thursday’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  In Slate, Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick characterize the timing of the decision as “terrible” in light of the nation’s economic woes, and they describe the outcome as somewhat unexpected given the conservative-leaning Court’s recent decisions to uphold the Voting Rights Act (in NAMUDNO) and disparate-impact tests (in Ricci).  Kenneth Jost also criticizes the Court’s decision as overly broad, opining that such expansive decisions should be reserved for instances in which the Court needs to protected endangered constitutional rights.  And at The New York Times, Adam Liptak describes Justice Stevens’s “full-throated” and disappointed dissent, noting that his recent opinions have been united by the theme that the Court has “lost touch with fundamental notions of fair play.”

In the wake of last week’s oral argument in United States v. Comstock, an opinion piece at the Wall Street Journal speculates on the ramifications of a possible reversal by the Court; allowing the federal government to commit sex offenders in the name of public safety, it writes, could “sanction the notion that any appealing idea may be justified as necessary and proper.”

The beginning of the much-publicized District Court trial of Proposition 8 leads Supreme Court coverage early this week.  NPR and the WSJ run extensive previews of the California trial.  Both feature speculation on how the current Court might rule on the issue should it reach that stage of the appeals process; NPR’s coverage notes that while opponents of Prop. 8 are concerned that the “conservative-leaning Supreme Court might be reluctant to strike [it] down,” the measure’s proponents worry about the matter passing through the more liberal Ninth Circuit.

The Christian Science Monitor and the L.A. Times have coverage of the Court’s Monday dismissal of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee.  The Court heard oral arguments on November 4 after the Obama Administration urged the Court to find in favor of the petitioners, contending that a ruling in favor of McGhee and Harrington would “make prosecutors reluctant to aggressively enforce the law.”  However, as Lyle also reported yesterday, the Court will no longer issue an opinion in the case after lawyers from both sides announced a $12 million settlement of the respondents’ claims.

Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this article on City of Ontario v. Quon, in which the Court granted cert. yesterday.  He suggests that although the legal issue in the case is limited to text messaging in government workplaces, the decision may nonetheless hint at the Court’s views on the broader issue of privacy rights in the Internet era.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog and Robert Barnes at the Washington Post also have coverage of the case, as does Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor.

The Court’s decision not to review a challenge by a Native American group to the Washington Redskins mascot leads Monday’s coverage. The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NPR, and the hometown Washington Post all report on the Court’s denial of cert. in Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc.