“Supreme Court Case on Contraceptives Mandate May Offer Little Closure”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Issue of contraceptive coverage returns to Supreme Court.” And Julie Zauzmer has an article headlined “Inside the Catholic nursing home at the center of a contentious Supreme Court case.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Little Sisters waging big fight at Supreme Court.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Obama health law birth control plan returns to Supreme Court.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court hears challenge to Obamacare contraceptive mandate.”
Irin Carmon of msnbc.com reports that “Birth control is back at the Supreme Court.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Birth Control At The Supreme Court: Does Free Coverage Violate Religious Freedom?”
At the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Birth control and justice: Little Sisters of the Poor take aim at Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.”
Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress has a post titled “The Supreme Court Case That Could Put Out The Hobby Lobby Fire.”
At the “Bill of Health” blog, Greg Lipper has a post titled “Zubik v. Burwell, Part 6: The Accommodation is the Least-Restrictive Option.” This post contains links to the earlier five parts of Lipper’s discussion of the case.
The Los Angeles Times has an editorial titled “Birth control and Obamacare are on trial yet again in the Supreme Court.”
In today’s edition of The New York Times, Elizabeth Deutsch — a student at Yale Law School — has an op-ed titled “No Contraception? No Equality.”
And online at USA Today, Mother Loraine Maguire — the Mother Provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor — has an essay titled “Obamacare attacks religious liberty: Little Sisters Mother Provincial.”
“Supreme Court Upholds Worker Class-Action Suit Against Tyson”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court deals blow to corporate push against class-action suits.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds workers’ class-action verdict in setback for corporations.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Employee Class Action Against Tyson Foods; Decision dashes business hopes that court would limit use of statistical evidence in class actions.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court makes some class action lawsuits easier.”
Claire Williams of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Tyson loses appeal of $5.8M verdict.”
Cristian Farias and Dave Jamieson of The Huffington Post report that “Supreme Court Hands A Major Victory To Workers Who Were Stiffed On Overtime Pay; The case is one of many the court heard while Justice Antonin Scalia was still on the bench.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Group lawsuits get a (modest?) boost.”
“Appeals court says Colorado sheriffs can’t sue governor over gun laws; The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rule on the constitutionality of two controversial gun laws passed in Colorado in 2013”: John Ingold of The Denver Post has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.
“ACLU challenges ruling on right to film police”: Jason Nark has this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Alaska’s hovercraft-riding moose hunter faces legal slog”: Robin Bravender of Greenwire has this report.
“In Samsung v. Apple, It’s Parts Against the Whole”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“Zubik v. Burwell: The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate could have wide-ranging impacts.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court Hints at Originalism’s Demise”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.
“Appeals court partly dismisses NSA surveillance case as moot”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“Petition making abortion illegal will not proceed, state Supreme Court rules”: Barbara Hoberock of The Tulsa World has an article that begins, “An initiative petition to criminalize abortion will not go forward, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. Proposed State Question 782, if put on the ballot and approved by voters, would have made those who perform or receive an abortion guilty of murder.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.
“Supreme Court: Pender is within Omaha Indian Reservation boundaries; legality of tribe’s liquor tax unclear.” Paul Hammel of The Omaha World-Herald has this report.
Kevin Abourezk of The Lincoln Journal Star reports that “Supreme Court decision could lead to tribal taxes on Pender businesses.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: History lessons along the old frontier.”
“Liberal justices lean toward Puerto Rico in debt case”: Lawrence Hurley and Nick Brown of Reuters have this report.
Greg Stohr and Michelle Kaske of Bloomberg News report that “Puerto Rico Gets Mixed Reception at U.S. Supreme Court.”
Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems sympathetic to Puerto Rico in debt case.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: If only Congress had taken the time to explain . . . .”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, No. 15-233.
“Supreme Court to Hear Samsung Appeal on Apple Patent Award”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Families Of 9/11 Victims Confront Painful Memories At Gitmo War Court”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Pa.’s judges reeling from the latest humiliation”: In yesterday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Chris Mondics had an article that begins, “Will the shocks, humiliations and embarrassments that have been plaguing the Pennsylvania judicial system for decades ever come to an end? Scandal has become an enduring theme of the Pennsylvania judiciary.”
“Lawmakers propose sweeping judicial discipline reform in wake of email scandal”: Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an article that begins, “Pennsylvania lawmakers have proposed sweeping judicial discipline reform in the wake of the email scandal that has led to the departure of two state Supreme Court justices.”
And late today, Pennsylvania’s Court of Judicial Discipline issued this order in the case captioned In re: Justice J. Michael Eakin.
“Obama’s high court nominee moves ahead with U.S. Senate meetings”: Reuters has this report.
“In Tyson, SCOTUS OKs statistical samples, leaves open uninjured plaintiffs issue”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.
“High Court Rulings Give Glimpse of Post-Scalia World”: Jess Bravin has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”
And Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Hands Down First 4-To-4 Decision Since Antonin Scalia’s Death; The ruling offered a small taste of what an understaffed court is like.”
“In Criminal Rulings, Garland Has Usually Sided With Law Enforcement”: Charlie Savage will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Supreme Court backs Alaska moose hunter in fight against feds over hovercraft use”: Erica Martinson of Alaska Dispatch News has this report.
And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “High court rules in favor of Alaskan moose hunter, hands case back to lower court.”
“U.S. High Court Splits 4-4 for First Time Since Scalia Death”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
Access Uber’s brief for appellant seeking to decertify and send to arbitration the large class action brought by Uber drivers: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the brief online at this link.
Eighth Circuit overturns supervised release condition that the defendant obtain no additional tattoos: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.
Netflix prevails against U.S. Postal Service in D.C. Circuit battle to keep postage rates lower for DVD-by-mail service: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
A Sixth Circuit win for the NorCal Tea Party Patriots in that group’s ongoing dispute with the IRS: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
“Supreme Court hits first post-Scalia deadlock in bankruptcy case”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
“A Partisan Prescription for Paralysis”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.
And online at The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an essay titled “The Supreme Court fight is about democracy.”
“Court asks: Do police need a warrant to track your cellphone for months at a time?” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
“Privacy vs. Press: The Hulk Hogan case could force the Supreme Court to finally draw the line between press freedom and privacy; The press might not like it.” Law professor Amy Gajda has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued four rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Nebraska v. Parker, No. 14-1406. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in part. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 14-1209. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. And the Court issued a per curiam affirmance by an equally divided Court in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, No. 14-520, a case argued on October 5, 2015 (the very first day of the Term). You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices uphold $5.8 million award against Tyson Foods” and “High court’s tie vote upholds loan bias ruling.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules against Tyson Foods in class action case” and “U.S. top court backs moose hunter in Alaska hovercraft case.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Tyson Loses as High Court Upholds $5.8 Million Worker Award.”
“Garland is no sure bet on overturning Citizens United”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay in the Daily Journal of San Francisco.
“Constitution Check: Where does the Second Amendment stand now?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
“High court weighs whether to spare Texas man from execution”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court was considering whether a Texas man who killed a city worker in 2005 should be spared from a lethal injection, as his lawyers argue that a ban on executing mentally impaired prisoners should be extended to him.”
“Are Stun Guns Protected By Second Amendment? Supreme Court Suggests Yes.” This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
