– Shelby County v Holder – Section 4 of VRA declared unconstitutional, Roberts writing for majority
– Tomorrow at 10am the remaining decisions from the October 2012 term will be released
– The Moose will liveblog starting at 9am Eastern
Today more decisions on the merit cases argued in the October 2012 term will be announced starting at 10am Eastern.
SCOTUS Blog for liveblog starting at 9:00am Eastern.
The remaining cases in PDF format: Cases Remaining for October Term 2012 (not updated to reflect the 5 decided yesterday).
Pending cases include:
– Shelby County v. Holder 12-96, heard 02/27/2013, (Voting Rights Act)
– Hollingsworth v. Perry 12-144, heard 03/26/2013 (Prop 8)
– United States v. Windsor 12-307, heard 03/27/2013 (DOMA)
Here is the summary of the cases many of us are watching closely this week:
Hollingsworth v. Perry 12-144 CA9 Mar 26, 2013
(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the Constitution in this case.
Shelby County v. Holder 12-96 CADC Feb 27, 2013
Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
United States v. Windsor 12-307 CA2 Mar 27, 2013
(1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; (2) whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
Some SCOTUS news and commentary, found on the Internets:
Over four years ago, superlawyers Ted Olson and David Boies – who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore presidential election case – came together to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage on behalf of two California couples. In the next few days, the Supreme Court is finally expected to rule on whether that ban (known as Proposition 8) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act – which limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law – are constitutional. But then again, it might not . . . . So let’s talk about the same-sex marriage cases and what the Court could do with them in Plain English.
To help make sense of how the court could rule and what it will mean across the country, we are reposting this fabulous Washington Post interactive graphic. You can explore all the possibilities and look at which states the decisions would affect.