Author: Marissa Miller

This weekend’s clippings include coverage of two of the cases set for oral arguments this week – including the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts – as well as continued coverage of new developments in the same-sex marriage cases. On Wednesday, the Court is set to hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; previews of the case come from The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, Joan Biskupic of Reuters, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC’s Zachary Roth, CNN’s Bill Mears, and Jeff Glor and Phil Hirschkorn of CBS News. Darlene Superville of the Associated Press reports that, in a radio interview that aired on Friday, President Obama urged the Court to uphold the provision, arguing that if the Court strikes down this part of the law, it will become harder to help people who believe their rights at the polls have been violated. At NPR, Nina Totenberg and Angela Chang look at the eleven states’ amicus briefs filed in the case, noting “that some of the states now arguing against the law were not troubled by its provisions just four years ago, the last time it was before the court.”  At The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen examines the battle over Section 5 at length, while USA Today’s Richard Wolf notes that Section 5 has, “in a twist of irony,” reduced the political clout of minority voters by fostering ”so-called majority-minority election districts dominated by blacks or Hispanics,” which in turn “has required the simultaneous creation of more heavily white, Republican districts in surrounding areas.” Mark Sherman of the Associated Press reports that the law’s supporters are defending it on the ground that the law contains a “bailout provision,” which gives state, county and local governments the opportunity to show that they should no longer be subject to the requirements of Section 5. 

This weekend’s clippings highlight some of the Court’s upcoming cases, with an emphasis on this week’s oral arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto, in which the Court will consider the application of the doctrine of patent exhaustion to self-replicating technologies; coverage of this case comes from Andrew Pollack of The New York Times, Susan Decker and Jack Kaskey of Bloomberg News, CNBC’s Jane Wells, and Greenwire’s Jeremy Jacobs. And at The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen explores how the case “touches upon many of the ancient themes and struggles that animated . . . [the] life and times” of folk musician Woody Guthrie – “the little guy against big business, the small farmer against the agricultural conglomerate; the man of the land versus the agents of commerce” – while at Written Description, Lisa Ouellette reviews the academic commentary on the case.

This weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on some of the Term's upcoming cases, as well as a handful of cert. petitions that are now before the Justices. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports on the role that the President's views will play in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8; she explains that although the President "is expected to make the final decision on what arguments the Justice Department will make," "there are numerous legal routes that the government can take." At The Washington Post, Robert Barnes previews Bowman v. Monsanto Co., scheduled for argument next week; he describes the case as one that "raises questions about whether the right to patent living things extends to their progeny, and how companies that engage in cutting-edge research can recoup their investments." And Amanda Becker of CQ Weekly (h/t Howard Bashman) describes the origins of the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, which will be argued at the end of the month. Finally, a handful of articles focused on cert. petitions that are currently before the Court.  Michael Kirkland of UPI reports on Village of Palatine v. Senne, a challenge to the inclusion of personal information on parking tickets. And at Pro Publica, Nikole Hannah-Jones discusses the prospect that the Court could strike down the use of the "disparate impact" standard to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act; NPR interviewed Hannah-Jones about the story and the issue.

This weekend's coverage of the Court highlights some of the high-profile cases slated for oral argument in the second half of the Term. In an editorial for The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan urges Justice Anthony Kennedy and the Court "to ensure the right to vote by upholding Section 5" of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Richard Wolf of USA Today summarizes the roughly three dozen amicus briefs filed in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California Proposition 8, and United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), by opponents of same-sex marriage; in these briefs, Wolf explains, the opponents warn the Court that “lifting state or federal restrictions [on same-sex marriage] would threaten their own economic and religious freedoms and lead to social and political upheaval.”  Finally, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times previews this month's Maryland v. King, in which the Court will consider whether the taking of a DNA sample from a person in custody but not convicted is an "unreasonable search" forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution. Because of the political consequences of this decision, as well as the split among the circuits that this decision creates, there is a strong possibility that this case will ultimately reach the Court. Lyle reports on the decision for this blog, and additional coverage discussing the likelihood of review by the Court comes from Tom Schoenberg of Bloomberg News (here and here), David Savage and Jim Puzzanghera of the Los Angeles Times, Melanie Trottman, Jess Bravin, and Michael Crittenden of The Wall Street Journal, David Jackson of USA Today, Brad Knickerbocker of The Christian Science Monitor, Rick Ungar of Forbes, Josh Gerstein of Politico, Emily Bazelon at Slate, Charlie Savage and Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times, Robert Barnes and Steven Mufson of The Washington Post, and Garrett Epps at The Atlantic.

On Friday, the Court granted cert. in four new cases: Bond v. United States, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar,  Metrish v. Lancaster, and the Allen Stanford case, which represents the consolidation of three separate petitions. This weekend's coverage focuses on these new grants, as well as the swearing-in ceremonies of both President Obama and Vice President Biden and Justice Sonia Sotomayor's newly released memoir. As Lyle reported for this blog, the Justices have agreed to hear four new cases: Bond v. United States, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar,  Metrish v. Lancaster, and the Allen Stanford case; additional coverage of all four grants comes from Jonathan Stempel of Reuters. The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes of Reuters, and the Associated Press have coverage of the cert. grant in Bond, the case of a Pennsylvania woman who was prosecuted under a federal law that implements a global chemical weapons treaty for trying to poison her husband’s lover.  Bond’s case comes to the Court for the second time, as the Justices had previously considered whether she could be prosecuted under that law at all.  In addition, Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy comments on the case, arguing that Congress's constitutional power to make treaties "is best understood as a power . . . to make commitments regarding the use of its other enumerated powers, not a power that allows the federal government to legislate on whatever subjects it wants, so long as the issue is covered by a treaty."

On Friday, the Court granted cert. in six new cases. The weekend's clippings focus on these new grants, the release of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's memoir, and the cases that are scheduled for oral arguments this week. As this blog’s Lyle Denniston reported on Friday, the Justices have agreed to hear six new cases, including Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Salinas v. Texas, American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, and United States v. Kebodeaux. In the first of these cases, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Court will consider whether the First Amendment allows the government to deny funding for an international anti-AIDS program to organizations that do not actively oppose prostitution. Coverage of this cert. grant comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin (subscription required).  Several of those stories also include coverage of Salinas v. Texas, in which the Justices will consider whether the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence; both Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor and Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes of Reuters also have coverage.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the co-counsel to the petitioner in Salinas.]  David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports on American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, in which the Court will consider whether certain port regulations are preempted by federal law. And the Associated Press covers United States v. Kebodeaux, in which the Court will consider whether sex offenders who were released unconditionally before new sex offender registration rules were passed can be prosecuted for not registering.

On Friday, the Court granted certiorari in three new cases: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, United States v. Davila, and Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann. The weekend's coverage focused on these new grants, as well as the cases that are set for oral argument this week. At this blog, Lyle provides an overview of each of these three cases. In the first case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Justices will consider the interpretation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.  Additional coverage of the case comes from the Associated Press, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes of Reuters, Bill Mears of CNN, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, and Tony Mauro of the Blog of the Legal Times. Also in The Washington Post, Diana Reese discusses the case, its background, and her family’s experiences with adoption and Native American culture. [Disclosure: The author of this post is a student in the Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic, which represents the respondent in the case.]  In the second case, United States v. Davila, the Court will consider the remedy in a plea-bargained criminal case when a federal judge had some role leading up to agreement on the plea deal; the third case, Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, involves a water dispute between Texas and Oklahoma. Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports on the former, while the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the Texas Tribune, and Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire (h/t Howard Bashman) cover the latter.

Once again, the weekend's coverage focused on the Court's decision last week to grant cert. in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California Proposition 8. At this blog, Lyle reports that the Court has set the briefing schedule for the Windsor case, although no date has been set for oral argument. UPI's Michael Kirkland previews the case, with an emphasis on the role played by Edie Windsor, the eighty-three-year-old "same-sex marriage warrior" behind the lawsuit. Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo (h/t Howard Bashman) reports that gay rights advocates are optimistic about their chances of winning Justice Anthony Kennedy's swing vote; however, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal counters that, although Justice Kennedy's "moralizing rhetoric" suggests that he may be "activist and results-oriented" on this issue, "there's nothing in the legal logic of [Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas] that makes a constitutional right to same-sex marriage inexorable." Finally, in his column for the Chicago Tribune, Bill Press urges Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from the case, given his public statements on the issue.

On Friday, the Justices granted certiorari in five new cases, including in the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Coverage of these developments dominated the weekend’s Court-related news; this post rounds up (albeit non-exhaustively) that coverage. The Court's decision to grant cert. in both Hollingsworth v. Perry – in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 – and United States v. Windsor – in which it will consider the constitutionality of DOMA – has received extensive coverage from the media. In Friday's evening round-up, Max provides links to the early coverage of the grants. Further discussion of the cases, their significance, and the parties on each side comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg, Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, Jessica Garrison and Ashley Powers of the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Wendy Goffe at Forbes, Bill Chappell and Dana Farrington of NPR, Richard Wolf of USA Today (both here and here), Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor (both here and here), Brad Knickerbocker of The Christian Science Monitor, Richard Socarides of The New Yorker, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times.