Author: Rachel Sachs

Thursday's coverage of the Court focused on the ten same-sex marriage petitions that the Justices are scheduled to consider at their Conference today.   The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and The Hill have general coverage of the issues.  Amy covered the petitions and the different issues they present for this blog in plain English.

On Thursday, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, by a vote of eight to seven, held that the 2006 voter-approved amendment to the Michigan constitution, which prohibited any use of race in the admissions process to any of Michigan's public colleges and universities, was itself unconstitutional.  The court held that the amendment had impermissibly "reorder[ed] the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests."  Coverage of the opinion often focused on its relationship to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court is currently considering whether the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause.  Coverage of the Sixth Circuit's opinion comes from this blog, The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Detroit Free Press, and Education Week.  Commentary on the decision comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ilya Shapiro at Cato@Liberty, the editorial board of the Detroit Free Press, and the Volokh Conspiracy (Jonathan Adler, Eugene Volokh, and Stuart Benjamin).

Thursday's coverage of the Court focused on oral arguments heard earlier in the week.  At this blog, Steven Kaufhold recaps Monday's oral argument in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, in which the Court considered whether plaintiffs in securities misrepresentation cases under the fraud-on-the-market theory must prove materiality before the district court can certify a class, while Sergio Campos recaps Monday's oral argument in Comcast v. Behrend, involving whether a district court may certify a class action before it resolves whether the plaintiffs have introduced admissible evidence to support a class-wide award of damages.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Comcast.]

Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in the two cases that were rescheduled from Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy.  Transcripts of both oral arguments are available here. In Chaidez v. United States, the Court examined the retroactivity of its previous decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, in which it held that criminal defendants whose attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to a given offense will subject them to deportation have received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.  Coverage of the oral argument comes from Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, and Elizabeth Wydra at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text & History Blog.  The editorial board of The New York Times weighs in on the case, arguing that Padilla should apply retroactively, while at ACSblog Rebecca Sharpless argues that because Padilla merely applied an “old rule,” no retroactivity analysis is required.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Chaidez.]

Thursday’s coverage of the Court focused on next week’s oral arguments.  This blog, Reuters, and ABC News all preview Monday’s oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, in which the Court will consider whether a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists have standing to challenge international electronic wiretapping by the federal government.  Rochelle Bobroff at the Constitutional Accountability Center's Text & History Blog has additional commentary on the case.  And at Wired, David Kravets previews Monday’s oral argument in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in which the Court will consider whether copyright law’s exhaustion doctrine applies to copies lawfully made abroad and imported into the United States.

On Thursday, a divided panel of the Second Circuit struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, applying intermediate scrutiny to hold that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause. Coverage of both the decision and its relationship to the series of petitions for certiorari on same-sex marriage currently pending before the Court comes from this blog, Bloomberg, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the Associated Press, Reuters, UPI, The Christian Science Monitor, Slate, JURIST, the Washington Times, NBC News, the Volokh Conspiracy, and the Constitutional Law Prof Blog. Commentary on the decision comes from ACSblog, the Daily Beast, and the Volokh Conspiracy.

Yesterday's coverage of the Court focused primarily on Wednesday's oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, challenging the university's use of race in its undergraduate admissions process. Some coverage looked at the roles played by individual Justices: at Reuters, Joan Biskupic analyzed Justice Kennedy’s role in the case, while Tejinder Singh of this blog  and Josh Gerstein of Politico discussed the approaches of the Chief Justice and Justice Alito, respectively. More general coverage of the oral argument comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg and Lyle at Constitution Daily. JURIST has coverage not only of Wednesday's oral argument in Fisher but also of Wednesday's oral argument in Moncrieffe v. Holder, in which the Court will decide whether a conviction under a state law that includes but is not limited to the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without payment constitutes an "aggravated felony" for deportation purposes. Additional commentary on Fisher comes from Elise Boddie at this blog, Mark Ladov at ACSblog, Michael McGough at the Los Angeles Times, and Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker. [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, filed an amicus brief in support of the university in Fisher and represents the petitioner in Moncrieffe.]

Thursday's coverage of the Court focused primarily on this week’s oral arguments. The Economist addresses the issues at stake in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court is considering whether corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights abuses committed outside the United States. The Huffington Post and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) have additional commentary.

With the official start of the October Term 2012 just a few days away, much of yesterday’s coverage looked forward to the upcoming cases. Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune), NBC News, and The Atlantic preview several of the Term’s most anticipated cases, while the Heritage Foundation has also posted the video of its Term Preview event from earlier this week, which featured comments by Paul Clement and Tom Goldstein.

Briefly:

• JURIST and the Constitutional Law Prof Blog have additional coverage of the Court’s denial on Wednesday of an application to preclude Texas from using interim electoral maps in the upcoming November elections.  (Cormac also covered this story in yesterday’s round-up.)
• At Slate, Emily Bazelon examines the range of same-sex marriage cases that might be before the Court this Term, arguing that the Court should proceed incrementally and hear one of the “more cautious DOMA challenges,” rather than hear California’s Proposition 8 case.
• The Associated Press (via The Washington Post) and C-SPAN have coverage of Justice Kagan’s visit on Thursday to the University of Richmond Law School, in which she participated in a conversation with the dean, Wendy Perdue.