Writing for Verdict, Michael C. Dorf compares last week’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission with the political philosophy of fictional House of Cards majority whip Francis Underwood to reveal “a Court with an utterly benighted view of politics.” At CAC’s Text & History Blog, Brianne Gorod notes how Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling in McCutcheon is inconsistent with his stated beliefs as a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
While the Affordable Care Act remains “too entrenched, among consumers and providers, either to fail on its own or be dispatched by legislative ‘repeal,’” its opponents continue to resist the law, bringing lawsuits that could “wreak havoc beyond the exchanges.” Writing for The New Republic, Simon Lazarus explains what needs to be done to counter these challenges.
The Obama administration continues to face criticism for its deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally. Ginger Thompson and Sarah Cohen of The New York Times reveal how an “examination of the administration’s record shows how the disconnect evolved between the president’s stated goal of blunting what he called the harsh edge of immigration enforcement and the reality that has played out.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to grant certiorari in a case asking whether a business can “refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers.” Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog breaks down Elane Photography v. Willock and other orders from the high court.
Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic reviews former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, and highlights the justice’s change of heart on the constitutionality of capital punishment.
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Bruce Ackerman eloquently compares the current state of gay marriage to the struggle of the civil rights movement in order to “emphasize the link between institutionalized humiliation and the constitutional requirements of equal protection.” Indeed, as Ackerman’s analysis points out, “dignity is a constitutional principle.”
At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost notes that death row inmates are challenging the lethal injection formula that is being used for executions. In the piece, Jost explains why “it is not too much to ask that courts make sure that lethal injections, as carried out, are the humane executions they are supposed to be.”
Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker reports on the successes of the Affordable Care Act thus far, the fecklessness of some of its promoters and the law’s most critical hurdle.
Writing for Just Security, Marty Lederman describes why Hussain v. Obama is “a habeas case to keep an eye on.”
An Arizona federal court has ordered Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to stop “systematically [profiling] Latinos.” U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow said that Arpaio had been “targeting [Latinos] for arrest during raids at day-laborer gathering spots and detaining them longer than other drivers during traffic stops.” Fernanda Santos of The New York Times comments on the case.
Researchers believe that The Department of Corrections’ newly expanded lethal-injection combinations in Oklahoma “will significantly amplify the risk of inmates' facing inhumane and possibly unconstitutional pain and suffering.” Samantha Vicent at Tulsa World reports on the troubling issue.
The Colorado Supreme Court has approved a law allowing lawyers to work with marijuana businesses. Writing for The Denver Post, John Ingold discusses the legal implications of the new rule.
Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog provides extensive coverage on yesterday’s oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.
This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides a helpful analysis of the cases while Robert Barnes at The Washington Post breaks down the “vocally devout justices” and the role religion may play in their decision. For more discussion, watch an ACS briefing on the dual challenges known as the “contraception mandate cases.”
Twenty-three years ago, Anita Hill accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. In an interview with Hill, DahliaLithwick at Slate reviews the new documentary Anita and describes how “Hill’s testimony had a huge impact on sexual harassment law, and in the public discourse.”
Officials in Mississippi are waiting for approval from the state supreme court to execute Michelle Byrom, a mentally ill woman accused of murdering her husband. Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic explains why “the case of Michelle Byrom contains the unholy trinity of constitutional flaws sadly so common in these capital cases.”
The Obama administration is expected to propose “an end to the [National Security Agency’s] mass collection of Americans' phone call data.” The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman has the story.
Karen Tani at Legal History Blog reviews The Crusade for Equality in the Workplace: The Griggs v. Duke Power Story by the late Robert Belton.
Yesterday, President Obama requested a review of the administration’s enforcement policies for immigration laws. The White House asked Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to oversee the process. Seung Min Kim and Reid J. Epstein at POLITICO report on the president’s effort to create a more humane immigration system.
In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (D- Idaho) organized a Senate committee to review American intelligence activities. Referred to as the Church Committee, the group uncovered secret wrong-doings by the U.S. government. Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. at The Nation argues “why we need a new Church Committee to fix our broken intelligence system.”
Mississippi lawmakers voted to “study” a bill that gay rights activists believe would promote discrimination on the basis of religion. Adam Serwer at MSNBC comments on “the latest setback for the religious right.”
Writing for Voices at the Open Society Foundations, Viorel Ursu explains why Ukraine’s future will be decided “by the new government’s response to the fundamental demands for justice.”
At The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen notes the “problem of lengthy delays in capital cases.”
Dan Markel at Prawfsblawg breaks down a new paper by Larry Krieger that helps answer the question, “What makes lawyers happy?”