Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Rules Narrowly In Voting Rights Case” featuring Nina Totenberg. Meanwhile, late on yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Leaves Voting Rights Act Intact.”
Yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Rules In Voting Rights Case” also featuring Totenberg.
And yesterday’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Rules On Voting Rights Act” featuring, among others, David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times.
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Gay couple’s weapon in lawsuit: Obama’s words.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “When Orange County newlyweds Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer face off against the Obama administration over a law that denies federal benefits and interstate recognition for their marriage, they will have some potent ammunition: President Obama’s own words.”
“Justices Retain Oversight by U.S. on Voting”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Ruling Prompts a Mixed Response” and an editorial entitled “The Voting Rights Act Survives.”
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Voting Rights Act Upheld, But Court Hints at Change.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Voting Rights Victory: The Supreme Court wisely refuses to usurp Congress’s judgment.”
In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court narrows but preserves Voting Rights Act; The justices leave Section 5 safeguards intact while allowing municipalities with a clean record to ‘bail out’; Clarence Thomas dissents, saying he would strike down the provision.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A victory for the Voting Rights Act: The Supreme Court’s decision to preserve a key provision of the 1965 legislation is a welcome outcome.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Narrow ruling leaves intact voter rights law.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “No, discrimination at polls isn’t just ancient history: Supreme Court’s doubts about Voting Rights Act raise concern.”
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Supreme Court Avoids Voting-Rights Act Fight.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Supreme Court: More districts can sue to bail out of Voting Rights Act; The court did not strike down the law Monday, as some experts had expected, but it opened the door for jurisdictions to free themselves from one of the act’s key provisions” and “Supreme Court strikes a compromise to save landmark voting law; Civil rights activists praise the court for not throwing out a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court eases Voting Rights Act regulations.”
In The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell reports that “Supreme Court lets Voting Rights Act stand in Austin case; Decision lets more governments opt out of federal election oversight.”
In The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin and Aaron Gould Sheinin report that “Supreme Court issues narrow Voting Rights Act ruling; Counties and towns can ask to be exempt.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Voting Rights Act left intact.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “High Court’s Narrow Ruling on Voting Rights Act Evokes Surprise.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Compromise Prevails in U.S. Supreme Court Voting Rights Ruling.”
“Cheetah Lounge challenges law on underage exotic dancers”: Today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an article that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court has to decide whether Atlanta city officials are trampling on the rights of exotic dancers by demanding they be age 21 to perform in alcohol-selling clubs or protecting them from the evils of underage drinking.”
“Court allows gold mine to dump waste in lake; Despite ruling, detractors say fight is far from over”: The Anchorage Daily News contains this article today.
In The Los Angeles Times, Jim Tankersley and David G. Savage report that “Justices OK dumping mine waste into Alaskan lake; The Supreme Court approves the draining of gold mine debris into a small lake; The Bush administration had labeled it ‘fill’ rather than pollution to make the dumping comply with the Clean Water Act.”
And The New York Times reports today that “Justices Say Waste Can Be Dumped in Lake.”
“Justice’s car plows into store; Pickering apologized to the store owner, wasn’t cited in incident”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
And The Las Vegas Sun reports that “Stuck accelerator sends Supreme Court justice’s car into store; No one injured after Pickering’s Mercedes slams into UPS business.”
“Nominee for Alito’s 3rd Circuit Seat Appears to Be a Centrist at Heart”: law.com’s Henry Gottlieb has an article that begins, “Don’t look for a 180-degree swing between Samuel Alito Jr. and Joseph Greenaway Jr., President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill Alito’s seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”
“Supreme Court ruling involving disqualification of judges prompts review; Disqualification of judges to be studied”: Today’s edition of The Las Vegas Review-Journal contains an article that begins, “The Nevada Supreme Court ordered a commission looking at judicial reform to re-examine when a judge should be disqualified from a case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue earlier this month. The court gave the commission until July 20 to deliver a report on disqualifications.”
“Nevada high court justice’s car plows into store”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Officials say a Nevada Supreme Court justice and a store owner escaped injury when the judge’s car smashed through the glass front window of a UPS store in Las Vegas.”
And The Las Vegas Review-Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court justice drives into store.”
You can access the biography of Justice Kristina Pickering of the Supreme Court of Nevada at this link.
“Court Affirms Reimbursement for Special Education”: The New York Times has this news update.
“Judges on ACS Panel Agree on Caseload, Pay and Shoddy Lawyering”: Saturday at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Jeff Jeffrey had a post that begins, “They came from very different federal circuits, but the six appellate judges sitting on a panel at the American Constitution Society’s annual conference today agreed on several things. All six said that the volume of cases reaching their desks is becoming almost too much to bear, federal judges should be paid more, and something must be done about incompetent counsel.”
Analysis available online at “SCOTUSblog”: Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Is Section 5’s future shaky?”
And Tom Goldstein has a post titled “Supreme Court Invalidates Section 5’s Coverage Scheme.”
“Free-Speech Case for a Debt-Ridden Age”: In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column.
“Supreme Court Backs Reimbursement for Private Tuition”: Mark Walsh and Erik W. Robelen of Education Week have this report.
“Et Tu, Scalia? Dispatch from the American Constitution Society convention.” Lydia DePillis has this essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court victory for parents of disabled students; Justices rule that parents who remove a disabled child from public school can be reimbursed for private instruction; The court says a ‘free, appropriate’ education is a public duty”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
“Supreme Court narrows, but preserves, Voting Rights Act; In a unanimous decision, justices leave safeguards intact while allowing municipalities with a clean record to ‘bail out'”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Rules Narrowly on Voting Rights Act.”
And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court avoids major voting rights ruling.”
“Supreme Court to review sex offender law; The top court agrees to assess a law that lets the US government indefinitely detain sex offenders even after they have served their sentences”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
“Initial Thoughts on NAMUDNO: Chief Justice Roberts Blinked.” At his “Election Law Blog,” law professor Rick Hasen has a post that begins, “Despite Chief Justice Roberts’ longstanding skepticism of the Voting Rights Act and his blistering set of questions to supporters of section 5’s constitutionality during oral argument, the Chief has managed to put together a coalition of 8 of 9 Justices to put the question off for another day.”
James Vicini of Reuters is reporting: He has articles headlined “Supreme Court to decide federal sex offender law” and “Supreme Court rules for Coeur on Alaska permit.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News is reporting: He has articles headlined “Voting Rights Act Narrowed by U.S. Supreme Court” and “Whistleblower Lawsuits Will Get Scrutiny By U.S. Supreme Court.”
Access online today’s opinions in argued cases and Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued three opinions in argued cases.
1. The Court’s first opinion today in an argued case issued in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, No. 07-984. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., joined in full, and in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined in part. Justice Breyer also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter joined. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
2. Today’s second opinion issued in Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., No. 08-305. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice Souter issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
3. Today’s third opinion issued in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Section 5 survives” that begins, “With only one Justice voting to strike down Congress’s 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act’s controversial Section 5, the Supreme Court on Monday interpreted the law in a way that saves it.”
You can access today’s Order List at this link.
The Court today granted review in three cases — Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson; United States v. Comstock; and Florida v. Powell. The Comstock case presents the question whether the U.S. Congress has the power to authorize the continued confinement of sexually violent predators after they have served their federal criminal sentence.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on sex offender law.”
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court rules narrowly in voting rights case“; “Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake“; “Court says public must pay for private special ed“; “Court to rule on federal sex offenders law“; “Court to decide Miranda warning expansion“; “Court to look at standards in whistleblower case“; “Court won’t decide if fake money should look real“; “Court will not revive Plame’s lawsuit“; and “Court won’t get involved Massachusetts tax fight.”
“Federal judges’ workload to rise; Jurist’s departure will be 2nd vacancy from Md. bench”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “Maryland’s U.S. District Court judges already handle an average of 250 cases apiece, and the caseload is about to get heavier, with the U.S. Senate expected soon to confirm Andre Davis to a new position on the region’s federal appeals court.”
“GOP: no benefit to court fight.” Politico.com has this report, along with an article headlined “Oklahoma senator won’t meet with Sotomayor.”
The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports today that “Exonerated man opposes Sotomayor’s nod.”
Yesterday’s edition of Newsday reported that “Sotomayor’s views in speeches scrutinized.”
Today in The Washington Times, Charmaine Yoest has an op-ed entitled “Sotomayor worse than Souter; A stronger proponent by far of abortion rights.”
In The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Bruce Castor Jr. has an op-ed entitled “Obama’s Supreme Court nominee raises concerns.”
And in The Washington Post, today’s installment of Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column is headlined “Do You Have Sotomayor’s Number?”
“Death penalty decisions loom for Barack Obama”: Josh Gerstein has this report at Politico.com.
“The Supreme Court Breakfast Table” at Slate returns: The first installment, written by Walter Dellinger, is titled “Harmonic Convergence at the High Court.” The other participants in the conversation will be Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick.
“Innocents Lost: A Supreme Court decision increases the risk that the wrongly convicted could be kept behind bars.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
“Judge’s Mentor: Part Guide, Part Foil.” Monday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Not long after her admission to Yale Law School in early 1976, Sonia Sotomayor turned up unexpectedly at a lunch with the university’s general counsel, Jose A. Cabranes.”
“In Missouri, a Fight Over a Highway Adoption”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “When a neo-Nazi group called the National Socialist Movement volunteered last year to clean a Missouri highway, and get official recognition for it in the form of an Adopt-a-Highway sign, state officials felt powerless to refuse. So they took a rather clever tack.”
Update: And The Associated Press reports that “Road cleaned by neo-Nazis may be named for rabbi.”
“Courts to rule on fate of Georgia’s ‘badge of racism'”: Bill Rankin and Aaron Gould Sheinin will have this article Sunday in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“President Barack Obama nominates federal judge in Newark to U.S. appeals court”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.
And today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin reports that “Obama nominates Martin to federal appeals court; She would fill spot open in Atlanta; Judge has presided over Taser case, Williams’ appeal.”
“Court Nominee Sotomayor Quits Women-Only Group”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Padilla v. Yoo: The man once accused of being a ‘dirty bomber’ is cleared to sue a key player in George W. Bush’s ‘war on terror.'” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
“Case appears closed on ‘Cuban Five’; The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear what may be the last appeal by five Cuban intelligence agents, convicted as spies in the U.S. but hailed as heroes back home”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.
“Delay in Releasing CIA Report Is Sought; Justice Dept. Wants More Time to Review IG’s Findings on Detainee Treatment”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
