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.)

ISCOTUS Director Christopher Schmidt looked back to the dramatic bench announcements at the Supreme Court in last term’s death penalty case, Glossip v. Gross.

On Casetext, Colin Starger considers this week’s arguments in Montgomery v. Louisiana, involving the retrospective application of a previous holding in which the Court prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles.  He concludes: “With the problem of mass incarceration now getting mainstream attention, the Court may realize that retroactive application of important new rules is one easy way to get very old men and women out of prison.”

Further commentary pours in after last week’s oral arguments for Hurst v. Florida as the Court considers the constitutionality of Florida’s scheme for sentencing the death penalty. Sam Kamin wrote “the Florida capital scheme is spectacularly, flamboyantly unconstitutional and . . . Florida seems not much to care.” In the National Review, Jonathan Keim predicted, “On the whole, I think the Court will split the baby on this case.”

Tony Mauro wrote about how Supreme Court Justices check for conflicts without software. “‘The conflict-checking process is an internal one carried out by the individual chambers,’” wrote Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

Coverage continues on the class-action case Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the case of a litigant who “won’t take yes for an answer.” ABA Journal summarizes the issues.

On Bloomberg BNA, Kimberly Robinson explained why preemption cases “are fascinating . . . really!”

During a University of Minnesota Law School appearance, Justice Scalia commented on the Court’s approach to the death penalty, as well as his experience on the bench. “I have never aspired to have the most dissents in the court’s history . . . I’m in third place now. I hope I’m never in first place.”