Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)
In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reviews the Supreme Court’s position on the standing doctrine, which will be at issue in the upcoming case challenging Obamacare.
Arguments in Wednesday’s EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch centered on a question of responsibility: is it an employer’s or employee’s duty to identify potential conflicts that might arise from a company’s policies and an individual’s religious practices?
Should law firms have to pay the expensive bills that accrue in bankruptcy cases? The Court heard both sides of the issue in Wednesday’s Baker Botts v. ASARCO.
A fish is not a “tangible object,” according to the Court’s decision in US v. Yates—meaning that fisherman John Yates will not be held accountable for tampering with evidence when he disposed of undersized fish while being investigated for violating federal regulations.
In another ruling this week, the Court held that North Carolina’s dental board cannot regulate teeth whitening businesses, a decision that could change the makeup of similar boards across the country.
At SCOTUSblog, Professor Barbara Babcock reviews The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new book by Scott Dodson.
Next week, the Court will hear a case that could set a new precedent for how child abuse is reported.
Steven Heyman guest blogs for ISCOTUSnow with a post examining the conservative-libertarian turn in First Amendment jurisprudence at the Supreme Court.