Yesterday, media coverage of the Court continued to focus largely on Monday’s decision to grant cert. in Arizona v. United States. James Vicini of Reuters discusses the implied preemption issue at the heart of the case, while Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal reports on reactions to the grant from both ends of the ideological spectrum. And Rachel Glickhouse of Americas Society both summarizes the issues in the case and lists the other states whose own immigration laws could be affected by the Court’s eventual decision.
News coverage also centered on the Court’s announcement on Friday that it would review the Texas redistricting cases. Manny Fernandez of the New York Times reports on the announcement’s effects on the election process in Texas, just a few months before the scheduled March 6 primary, while Brian Chasnoff and Nolan Hicks of the San Antonio Express-News (via the Houston Chronicle‘s Texas on the Potomac blog) similarly describe the “political nightmare” created by the Court’s orders. At this blog, Lyle Denniston has a detailed look at the timeline of the Texas redistricting cases and the impact that the Court’s decisions will have on the coming Texas election cycle. Massimo Calabresi of Time Magazine also has coverage.
- Given opinion polls on the issue, Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times blog The Loyal Opposition suggests that the Court would harm its credibility by refusing to allow cameras at the health care arguments.
- Making light of the camera discussion, Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic proposes several Justice-themed prime-time television shows.
- Dahlia Lithwick of Slate notes that at a time when our nation’s conceptions of federalism are in flux, the Court has on its docket several issues — including immigration, health care, and redistricting — which hinging on the relationship between the federal government and the states.
In association with Bloomberg Law