by Caroline Cox
In USA Today, Richard Wolf writes about the Justices’ different views on statutory interpretation and how they could impact King v. Burwell.
Garrett Epps discusses the flawed argument against the Affordable Care Act at The Atlantic using the analogy of a poor reading of the Harry Potter series.
Sahil Kapur examines at Talking Points Memo how the Senate could kill the Supreme Court filibuster
At The Economist, Steven Mazie considers how some states are making same-sex marriage “a matter of religious conscience” in order to lessen the sting of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
In The New York Times, William Baude argues that the Court should be more transparent in its orders as such transparency “is vital to its continued legacy.”