“Appeals court upholds health-care law’s individual mandate”: Jerry Markon has this article today in The Washington Post.
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Appeals Court Says Health Law Is Constitutional.”
The Detroit News reports that “6th Circuit Appeals Court upholds Obama health care law.”
And at Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog, Massimo Calabresi has a post titled “A Closer Look at Obama’s Big Legal Win on Health Reform.”
“Term review: A more activist Court; The Court has just finished a Term in which its tendency to decide cases more broadly than necessary — an activist inclination — appeared to deepen.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“No Justice push for Thomas recusal”: Politico.com has an article that begins, “A current and a retired Supreme Court justice on Wednesday declined to criticize Justice Clarence Thomas for not recusing himself from cases that critics say he has a personal interest in because of his wife’s employment.”
Programming note: I’ll be out of the office this afternoon. As a result, additional posts will appear here later today.
“High court undoes Scalia’s pro-tobacco order”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
“Sonia Sotomayor: How She Became the Public Face of the Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing.” Law professor David Fontana has this essay online at The New Republic.
“Roberts Court Wraps up Term, Leaving Significant Conservative Mark”: This segment (transcript with link to video) featuring Marcia Coyle appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of the PBS program “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”
“Common Sense and Sensibility”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.
“High court could make gay marriage a 2012 issue; In 2004, the topic motivated conservative voters in Ohio and other states”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC.com, has this report.
“Alabama Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb to step down Aug. 1”: The Birmingham News has this update.
“Newspaper Chain Fights for Copyright Troll’s Survival”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.
And VEGAS INC has reports headlined “Righthaven disputes judge’s criticism on disclosures” and “Another judge threatens to dismiss Righthaven copyright suits.”
“Lokuta’s reinstatement bid’s final shot: U.S. high court filing.” This article appears today in The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
And The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports today that “Lokuta takes her fight to Supreme Court.” That newspaper has posted the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“Bush v. Gore: Is it worse for a child to see pornography or graphic violence?” Brian Palmer has this explainer essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court: 2010-11 term in review.” Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
“Appeals court upholds health care law”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this news update.
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch has a news update headlined “Federal appeals court upholds Obama’s new health care law.”
Politico.com reports that “6th Circuit panel upholds individual mandate.”
The Hill has a blog post titled “Court rules healthcare reform law is constitutional, upholds mandate.”
And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Federal Court Upholds Health Care Law” featuring Nina Totenberg.
“Divided Appeals Court Rules Against FBI In Death Penalty Case”: Mike Scarcella has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
In Bashman newz from New Zealand: The New Zealand Herald has a news update headlined “Thugs bash man, then force nephew to get cash.”
“Physicians file lawsuit to stop abortion clinic restrictions”: Today’s edition of The Kansas City Star contains an article that begins, “A father-daughter physician team is going to court to stop the state from imposing new rules that could potentially leave the state abortion free by the end of the week.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued its ruling in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama: You can access the ruling at this link. The line-up on the three-judge panel is as follows:
MARTIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUTTON, J., and GRAHAM, D. J., concurred as to Parts I (background) and II (subject matter jurisdiction) and in which SUTTON, J., concurred in the judgment. SUTTON, J. (pp. 27-53), delivered the opinion of the court as to Part I (taxing power) of his opinion, in which GRAHAM, D. J., joins. GRAHAM, D. J. (pp. 54-64), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part
As the lead opinion explains, “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”
Senior U.S. District Judge James L. Graham‘s separate opinion concludes:
Notwithstanding Raich, I believe the Court remains committed to the path laid down by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to establish a framework of meaningful limitations on congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The current case is an opportunity to prove it so.
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 565 (“[D]epending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial.”). Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.
Thus, only one judge on the three-judge panel would have struck down the federal healthcare mandate as beyond Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.
My earlier coverage of this case can be accessed here (linking to the biographies of the judges on the appellate panel) and here (linking to the appellate oral argument audio and initial news coverage of the oral argument).
In early news coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “US appeals court upholds Obama health care law.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Administration Health Care Law Upheld by U.S. Appeals Court Panel.”
Reuters reports that “Appeals court backs healthcare law, win for Obama.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Appeals court rules in favor of Obama on health care.”
The New York Times has a news update headlined “Appeals Court Upholds Obama’s Health Care Law.”
Noam N. Levey and David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “In major test, appeals court upholds Democratic healthcare law.”
The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Appeals Court in Ohio Upholds Health Law.”
The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Appeals court upholds Obama’s health care law.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer has a news update headlined “Cincinnati appeals court upholds Obama’s health-reform plan.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Health insurance mandate survives — barely.”
And at the “aca litigation blog,” law professor Brad Joondeph thus far has written five posts about the ruling. You can access those posts here, here, here, here, and here.
“Court Jesting: These Sentences Don’t Get Judged Too Harshly; Creative Writing Rules for Some on Bench; ‘Tough as a Three-Dollar Steak.”‘ Nathan Koppel has this article today in The Wall Street Journal. And at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Koppel has this related post.
As for what may explain the upsurge in creative opinion writing, Koppel’s article notes one possible explanation — a desire to attract attention from the growing number of widely read law-related blogs.
The article correctly observes that sometimes creative opinion writing succeeds, while other times it does not. I have thus adopted a policy here at “How Appealing” of trying to highlight the best examples of the genre, while simply ignoring those instances that fall flat or seem to amount to little more than unseemly pleas for attention.
Watch live from the Aspen Ideas Festival — “Does the Supreme Court Follow the People?” The program, featuring Justice Stephen G. Breyer, law professor Larry Kramer, and retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with law professor Jeffrey Rosen serving as moderator, is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. eastern time today.
You can view the event live via this link. Thanks to law professor Rick Hasen for the pointer.
“Should Justices Keep Their Opinions to Themselves?” Jeff Shesol will have this op-ed Wednesday in The New York Times.
“Justices who will shape Supreme Court’s future are matching pairs”: Robert Barnes will have this article Wednesday in The Washington Post.
“Couple’s case against EPA to be heard; Can’t build on property in Idaho designated as wetland by agency”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Times.
And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article headlined “Supreme Court to Hear EPA Wetland Case” (via The New York Times).
“Penn State Law case beats long odds to be heard by the Supreme Court”: The Pennsylvania State University today issued a news release that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case presented by the Penn State Law Civil Rights Appellate Clinic.”
“Lawyers in two online speech cases will seek Supreme Court review; J.S., Doninger would be the high court’s first cases addressing student expression on the internet”: The Student Press Law Center has this report.
“Lodi man cannot sue foreign manufacturer for product liability, U.S. Supreme Court rules”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has this report.
“Clean Water Act Compliance Case Draws U.S. High Court Review”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Tobacco firms lose challenge to Louisiana ruling”: Bruce Alpert of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has a news update that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court Monday refused a request by tobacco companies to vacate a 2009 order requiring them to finance a $278 million smoking cessation program in Louisiana.”
And Law360.com reports that “High Court Won’t Review Smokers’ $270M Judgment.”
“Analysis: Big business scores key Supreme Court term wins.” James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
“First Amendment Dominates Court’s Latest Term”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
“Supreme Court to decide state ban on lame pigs”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“N.J. Senate approves nomination of Anne Patterson to state Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Newark Star-Ledger.
“Ga. execution is fodder for challenges to new drug”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Two probes opened into Bradley claim”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “Two agencies are investigating a claim by Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold earlier this month — an allegation Gov. Scott Walker on Monday called extremely serious.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Unseemly, once again: A long-running soap opera continues in Madison with conflicting reports of a physical altercation between Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley.” And columnist Eugene Kane has an op-ed entitled “Court scenario ridiculous, but it’s not a joke.”
Today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal contains an article headlined “Court watchers say high court has hit new low.” In addition, columnist Chris Rickert has an op-ed entitled “When it comes to workplace violence, justice shouldn’t trump the law.” And the newspaper has also posted online a news update headlined “Mahoney, in charge of Prosser-Bradley probe, endorsed Prosser’s challenger.”
