Lyle Denniston

  • September 15, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog argues that the ban on same-sex marriage in Arizona is likely to fall soon.

    In The New York Times, Jeremy W. Peters writes about how the partisan balance of the federal courts has shifted in little more than a decade.

    Jeff John Roberts of Gigaom questions what tech firm control over newsrooms means for public interest battles.

    Emily Bazelon writes in Slate that the accompanied minor crisis at the border is forcing legal experts to consider how the U.S. should determine grants of asylum.

    In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank argues that the future grand jury trial in Ferguson is likely to be a farce given the prosecutor’s attitude toward the case. 

  • August 26, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Matt Ford writes in The Atlantic on a new lawsuit in Oklahoma that seeks to require the state to record every death sentence it carries out.

    Allie Grasgreen raises questions in Politico on the influx of military-grade weapons given to university police.

    Katrina vanden Heuvel argues in The Washington Post against the threats to freedom of the press seen in Ferguson and Justice Department actions.

    In FiveThirtyEight, Ben Casselman profiles Ferguson, arguing that its economic and racial conditions are the norm rather than an outlier.

    Lyle Denniston provides a reading of the Supreme Court’s signals on same-sex marriage for SCOTUSblog

  • August 1, 2014

    by Ellery Weil

    The New York Times Editorial Board discusses a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel which found McDonald’s jointly responsible for the treatment of its workers at all of its franchises and argues that this should spur an increase in wages for fast food workers.

    Writing for SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston reports that challengers of the provision of the Affordable Care Act which provides subsides to those who obtain health insurance via the federal exchange are rushing their case to the Supreme Court, after two federal appellate courts delivered opposite rulings on the issue last month..

    At Politico, Laura W. Murphy compares attempts to reform the National Security Agency in the wake of revelations about the scope of its spying to successful efforts to limit the disparities in drug sentencing born from the War on Drugs.

    Benjamin Wittes writes at Lawfare about the CIA inspector general’s report regarding alleged hacking of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) staff files and records by the CIA.

  • April 18, 2014

    TPM’s Brendan James notes a recent study from Princeton on the state of American democracy. “The central point that emerges from our research,” the study’s authors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page write, “is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

    The U.S. Department of Justice is requesting that Texas legislators provide documents that "may shed light on the state’s motivation for enacting the 2011 congressional redistricting plans.” Writing for Legal Times, Todd Ruger discusses Perez v. Perry, an on-going case that has the DOJ addressing the “gutted key provision of the voting rights law” in Texas.

    Mississippi recently passed religious freedom legislation that allows businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. Now, more than 500 businesses are joining together to make it clear that their doors are open to everyone. Adam Serwer at MSNBC reports on the “If You’re Buying, We’re Selling Campaign.”

    At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston breaks down SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories and its implications on the “constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.”

  • June 24, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Republican obstructionists in the Senate have strived to hobble or make wholly inoperative the National Labor Relations Board, which is charged with protecting the rights of workers, including the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. That effort got a boost by the rightward leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled earlier this year that President Obama’s recess appointments to the five-member board were unconstitutional.

    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, an increasingly pro-business Court itself, decided to wade into the issue and determine whether the D.C. Circuit got it right in the case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. “The specific issue is the scope of the Constitution’s grant of presidential power to put an official temporarily into office without Senate approval – a power that arises when the Senate is not on hand to review that appointment,” writes SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston. “Answering that question could require the Court to define when the Senate, in a legal sense, goes into recess.”

    The D.C. Circuit’s opinion in January found that the president ran afoul of Article II, Section 2, which grants the executive the “power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” For more than a hundred years presidents have made recess appointments to fill executive branch and judicial vacancies that Congress has refused to provide advice and consent on. But the D.C. Circuit panel, made up of Republican appointees, narrowly defined when Congress was in recess, thereby invalidating Obama's recess appointments.

    The president, however, argued that the Senate was bent on blocking his nominations to the NLRB and that it was long past time to make the agency operational. Not surprisingly a group of Republicans lodged a brief with the high court calling on it to let the D.C. Circuit opinion stand.

    The Constitutional Accountability Center, however, lodged a brief urging the justices to take the case and reverse. The CAC’s brief says the D.C. Circuit opinion greatly weakened the recess appointments power by claiming it can only be used “during recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of Congress, and not during any intra-session break.”

    Denniston notes that while the justices may focus on the constitutional questions raised in the case, “the outcome has real potential for giving either the Senate of the White House real tactical advantages in the ongoing confirmation wars. It could give a resistant Senate a chance to nearly take away the president’s recess appointment authority, or it could give the White House a way to get around filibuster-driven obstruction of nominees.”

    As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted at the 2013 ACS National Convention, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly friendly to big business concerns, with the Chamber of Commerce continuing to rack up wins before the high court. The Chamber and other business interests will surely be pushing for a Supreme Court opinion that would narrow the scope of the president’s recess appointments power, especially since the case involves a Board it views as a hurdle to their interests.