"A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself."
Law professor Richard L. Hasen
has this jurisprudence essay
online at Slate.
"Supreme Court affirms ruling on Open Beaches Act":
Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this post
at that newspaper's "Austin Legal" blog.
The Galveston County Daily News has an update headlined "Court: Public beach easement does not roll."
And The Associated Press reports that "Texas Supreme Court limits Open Beaches Act."
Today's ruling on reargument of the Supreme Court of Texas, on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and three dissenting opinions (here, here, and here).
"Supreme Court takes up healthcare in secrecy":
James Vicini and Joan Biskupic of Reuters have this report
"Lacking GPS Data, Prosecutors Turn To Cell Tower Information":
Mike Scarcella has this post
at "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times."
"Health-Law Case Puts Roberts in Crucible; Chief Justices Maneuver to Shape Landmark Rulings With One Eye on History, Another on Supreme Court's Reputation":
Jess Bravin has this article
today in The Wall Street Journal.
Perhaps they are still writing 2011 on their checks: An opinion
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued today states at the outset that the case was "Argued February 16, 2012" and "Decided March 30, 2011." That may set a new record for speed of decision.
Update The court has corrected the typo in the version of the opinion posted at the court's web site, meaning that you'll have to click here to view the version of the opinion that the court originally posted online this morning.
Available online from The New Republic:
Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has an essay entitled "One Simple Argument Could Have Saved Obamacare; Too Bad Verrilli Didn't Make It
Simon Lazarus has an essay entitled "In Defense of Don Verrilli: Why the Solicitor General Actually Did a Great Job Defending Obamacare."
William Galston has an essay entitled "Why the Supreme Court Justices Won't Be Crudely Political When They Rule on Obamacare."
And Simon Meiners and Perry Stein have a blog post titled "Off the Record: The Ineffective Archival Methods of the Supreme Court."
"Frank J. Montemuro Jr., 86, former Pa. justice": This obituary
appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
"Super PACs, donors turn sights on judicial branch": This front page article
appears today in The Washington Post.
"In Health Case, Appeals to a Justice's Idea of Liberty":
In today's edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has a news analysis
that begins, "The way to frame a Supreme Court argument meant to persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is to talk about liberty."
In today's edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined "The Supreme Court will decide on the health-care law soon; It will tell you later."
The Los Angeles Times has articles headlined "For government lawyer Verrilli, tough week on healthcare case" and "Bad omen for healthcare law: Many comments from the justices."
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that "Supreme Court likely to vote on health care law Friday."
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined "Can you predict an outcome from Supreme Court justices' questions?"
The Washington Times reports that "Parties likely to spin Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling; Decision expected by June."
Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined "If Supreme Court scraps health-care law, who wins politically? Harsh questioning from the Supreme Court majority has touched off new political calibrations over President Obama's health-care law; In some ways, Democrats could be the winners."
And the current issue of The Economist contains articles headlined "Full-court press: Barack Obama's health-care law moves to America's highest court, and looks to be in danger; The case could transform the power of the federal government" and "Umpire of liberty: In addition to its polarised Congress, America has a polarised Supreme Court."
"Justice Department dropped case charging threats to Barack Obama":
At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post
that begins, "The Justice Department has quietly given up on a criminal case involving alleged death threats against Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, leaving in place a legal precedent that the department's own lawyers predicted would have far-ranging repercussions by encouraging threats against political candidates and complicating the work of the Secret Service."