Here’s a clip of me on C-SPAN taking viewer calls on the big Supreme Court rulings of the term that just ended and looking a bit ahead to next term.
The Supreme Court’s 2014 term is over, with the court issuing a flurry of major rulings on same-sex marriage, Obamacare, the death penalty and housing discrimination, among others. Here are a few of the stories I wrote on some of the biggest cases and the court as a whole toward the end of the term:
In Supreme Court term, Obama wins big and loses small [story]
Big business on winning side in U.S. top court’s major rulings [story]
How Wall Street came out on gay marriage [story]
As U.S. top court weighs gay marriage, a limited backlash brews in states [story]
High court eyes explosive cases on race, abortion [Reuters TV]
Same-sex marriage ruling opens bitter rift on high court [Reuters TV]
Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizes gay marriage nationwide [story]
U.S. top court backs Obamacare, president says it’s here to stay [story]
The 2013-2014 Supreme Court term is over. Here are a few stories I wrote that touch upon some of the key rulings and themes:
U.S. birth control ruling fuels battle over corporate rights [story]
U.S. justices uphold firms’ religious objections to contraception [story]
U.S. Supreme Court’s milestone ruling protects cellphone privacy [story]
U.S. high court bucks pro-business trend this term [story]
Top court mostly upholds Obama bid to curb carbon emissions [story]
Rebuking Obama, U.S. top court limits presidential appointment powers [story]
In February I joined Reuters as Supreme Court reporter. Here are a few highlights from the last 11 months:
Gay marriage gets big boost in two Supreme Court rulings: Final report on the day of the Supreme Court’s two big rulings related to gay marriage in June 2013.
Chamber of Commerce turns to small courts for big wins: A look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s legal strategy.
Analysis: Big business the winner in U.S. Supreme Court class action cases: A review of a series of Supreme Court rulings in class action cases in the 2012-2013 term.
National groups send a prayer to the Supreme Court: Reporting from Greece, NY on a Supreme Court case about the practice of allowing prayers before town meetings.
Analysis: U.S. air pollution authority faces Supreme Court test: Examining two cases concerning the Clean Air Act before the Supreme Court in its 2013-2014 term.
I recently started a new job as Supreme Court correspondent for Reuters. As a result, I probably won’t be posting much here. If you’re interested, check out my Twitter feed for updates on action at the court.
The Newtown-Conn.-based National Shooting Sports Foundation is challenging the federal government’s authority to seek data on semi-automatic rifle sales.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case January 9.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives — ATF — had asked dealers near the Mexican border to provide information on sales of “two or more semi-automatic rifles at one time or during five consecutive business days,” according to court documents. A district court judge upheld the agency’s decision to make the demand.
The foundation, the firearms industry’s trade association, appealed the ruling, as did some gun dealers. The group has generated considerable attention in recent days because it is based in the same town where the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place.
Lawyers for the foundation say ATF exceeded its authority under the Gun Control Act in making the request of 8,707 gun dealers in Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas.
“There is no rational law enforcement connection between the problem ATF sought to address – illegal firearms trafficking from the United States to Mexico – and merely conducting a lawful retail firearms business from premises located in one of the border states,” the foundation’s brief says.
The foundation’s lawyers also note that much-criticized ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program involved the agency allowing gun sales to suspected smugglers in an attempt to trace the purchased weapons back to Mexican drug cartels.
Government lawyers say the statute’s aim is to enable the “tracing of firearms recovered during a law enforcement investigation in order to identify potential violations of federal firearms laws.”
The letters were sent after the government determined “ATF’s efforts to investigate and combat arms trafficking across and along the southwest border were hindered by the lack of data on multiple sales of the semiautomatic rifles increasingly used by Mexican drug cartels,” the government maintains.
The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Jones, 12-5009.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put the spotlight on the federal government’s rulemaking process this week during the argument in a Clean Water Act case. It prompted a debate of epic proportions — if you work inside the Beltway. The focus was on the unexpected speed in which the Obama administration drafted and finalized an EPA rule that could have a major impact on how the case — about whether runoff from logging roads requires Clean Water Act permitting — comes out. Roberts, and presumably his colleagues, hadn’t anticipated that the rule would be finalized before the argument and he, in particular, was annoyed that the administration did not alert the court to that fact.
Here’s a summary of Roberts’ exchange with government lawyer Malcolm Stewart from a story Greenwire colleague John McArdle and I wrote:
Roberts said the government should have told the court that the final rule was “imminent,” a key piece of information he said was missing in the 875 pages of briefing in the case.
But most pertinently to those who track rulemaking procedures, Roberts seemed to have assumed the length of time it would take to finalize the rule would be much longer.
EPA submitted the rule to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Nov. 8. It was finalized 22 days later.
“Is it your experience that proposed EPA rules become final within a couple of months particularly?” Roberts asked Stewart yesterday.
The government lawyer conceded that the stormwater runoff rule “happened more quickly than it usually does” but insisted it was intended to make it easier for the court to decide the case.
“Obviously, it’s suboptimal for the new rule to be issued the Friday before oral argument,” Stewart said. “But it would have been even worse, I think, from the standpoint of the parties’ and the court’s decisionmaking processes if the rule had been issued a week or two after the court heard oral argument.”
Read the full story here.