Over the holiday weekend, coverage focused on recent developments at the Court. Many focused on the Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, in which the Court held that the First Amendment bars suits brought by ministers who claim that they were terminated by their churches in violation of employment discrimi­nation laws. At Balkinization, Jack Balkin considers the circumstances in which the “seemingly absolute rule of Hosanna-Tabor may prove less absolute that it currently appears,” while the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune labels the unanimous decision a “crucial blow for the rights of conscience.” Jost on Justice, ACSblog, and PrawfsBlawg provide more analysis.

The Court’s decision in Perry v. New Hampshire also drew attention from commentators. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times argues that the decision “needlessly narrows” a judge’s ability to suppress eyewitness testimony, which Scott Lemieux of the  American Prospect maintains will “lead to many more innocent people being convicted, even though a standard that is workable and more consistent with constitutional values is available.” The Nashua Telegraph also offers coverage. And at the Federalist Society blog, Jeffrey Pojanowski turns his attention to the recent decision in Judulang v. Holder.

Other coverage looked at recent arguments before the Court. At this blog, Kevin Russell gives a detailed recap of the Justices’ reactions to the oral argument in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, while Jack Martone concentrates on the argument in Roberts v. Sea-Land Services. At Bloomberg (via BusinessWeek), Greg Stohr provides a recap of the oral argument in the Texas redistricting cases, including excerpts from the cases. The New York Times editorial board argues that the redistricting issue “underscores a continuing need for Section 5” of the Voting Rights Act, while Lyle Denniston of this blog explains another legislative redistricting issue in front of the Court, this time involving West Virginia.

Elsewhere, coverage focused on the three new cases that the Court granted on Friday. Lyle Denniston provides a general overview of United States v. BormesKloeckner v. Solis, Labor Secretary, and Cavazos v. Williams on this blog. In Cavazos v. Williams, the Court will consider both when a state court has finally decided an issue, thus affecting a federal habeas court’s authority to hear a challenge to the case, as well as whether it is a violation of the Sixth Amendment for a judge to dismiss a hold-out juror from a deadlocked jury where the dismissal is in part due to the juror’s view of the verdict. Lyle Denniston calls it a “broad new challenge” by California to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling; the Fresno Bee and  Courthouse News Service offer more details in the case. Courthouse News Service also provides background on United States v. Bormes, in which the Court will consider whether the federal government is liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for a mistake in e-filing. Other orders from the January 13 Conference are expected this morning. Our full list of “Petitions to Watch” for the Conference is here.

 

And finally, others looked ahead to preview this week’s arguments at the Court. At this blog, Alan Horowitz explores the arguments in United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, to be argued today, explaining that the case “could yield a decision of broad importance or instead one of interest only to tax lawyers.” Reuters provides more background. Today the Court will also hear oral argument in Filarsky v. Delia; Bradley Joondeph provides a detailed preview of the issues in the case on this blog. This blog also features Kevin Johnson and Jill Family as they preview upcoming immigration law issues in Vartelas v. Holder, Holder v. Gutierrez, and Holder v. Sawyers.

 

Briefly:

  • Politico looks at the political dimension of the upcoming litigation of the Affordable Care Act.
  • Advise and Dissent, an award-winning documentary on Supreme Court confirmation hearingshas been released in a digital version; more information is available here.

 

 

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Nabiha Syed, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 17, 2012, 9:52 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/tuesday-round-up-106/