Coverage and commentary focused on the five opinions that the Court issued yesterday; this blog’s round-ups of the early coverage of the decisions can be found here and here.

Coverage of the opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters is preempted by federal law, comes from Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (audio), Bill Mears of CNN, Jess Bravin and Tamara Audi of The Wall Street Journal, Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Laura Klein Mullen at JURIST, and Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com.  Commentary comes from Derek T. Muller at Excess of Democracy, while at The Daily Beast, Richard L. Hasen argues that although the decision may look like a win for federalism, it “could shift some power in elections back to the states.” Both the Brennan Center for Justice and the Constitutional Accountability Center hailed the decision as a “victory.”

Coverage of the opinion in Salinas v. Texas, in which the Court held that prosecutors did not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights by using his pre-arrest silence as evidence against him at trial because he had never expressly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, comes from Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal, Tim Lynch at Cato At Liberty, Richard Wolf of USA Today, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.

Coverage of the opinion in Maracich v. Spears , in which the Court held that the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act prohibits the use of protected data from state drivers’ databases to solicit clients, comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST and Walter Olson at Cato At Liberty, who notes that the majority in the case is the polar opposite of the majority in Maryland v. King, another privacy case in which the Court upheld a Maryland law authorizing law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from individuals arrested for “serious” crimes.

Coverage of the opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, in which the Court held that the government and private parties can bring lawsuits to challenge payments made by brand-name drug makers to keep would-be competitors who make generic substitutes temporarily out of their markets, comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST.  Jaclyn Belczyk also covers the Court’s opinion in Alleyne v. United States, in which the Court held that any fact which increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to the jury.  Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic discusses both Alleyne and Salinas, arguing that the cases demonstrate the depth of the ideological split on the Court.

Briefly:

  • The Cato Institute (video) hosted a discussion on the constitutional issues raised by Bond v. United States, in which the Court will consider Congress’s ability to expand its powers via a treaty; participants include Judge Alex Kozinski, Nicholas Quinn Rosencrantz, and Roger Pilon.
  • At The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen argues that Justice Stevens was “dead wrong” when he said in a recent speech that taking a DNA sample is less intrusive than searching someone’s private papers.
  • Richard Wolf of USA Today explains why the same-sex marriage cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act) – “are not as simple as whether gays and lesbians can marry or not, and whether they become eligible for federal benefits.”
  • At The UCL Practitioner, Kimberly Kralowec discusses the Court’s decision last week in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, arguing that it is among a group of recent cases on “class-action-related issues in which a party concession significantly impacted the analysis and result.”
  • At PLF Liberty Blog, Ralph Kasarda discusses yesterday’s cert. in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., in which the Court will consider whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company et al. as an amicus in support of the petitioner in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis; the firm’s Tejinder Singh was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.

 If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.

 

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Matthew Lanahan, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 18, 2013, 11:18 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/tuesday-round-up-178/