<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SCOTUSreport</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusreport.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusreport.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:50:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Mixed Bag: Michigan Federal Judge Grants Injunctive Relief in an HHS Mandate Challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/11/01/a-mixed-bag-michigan-federal-judge-grants-injunctive-relief-in-an-hhs-mandate-challenge/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-mixed-bag-michigan-federal-judge-grants-injunctive-relief-in-an-hhs-mandate-challenge</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/11/01/a-mixed-bag-michigan-federal-judge-grants-injunctive-relief-in-an-hhs-mandate-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William J. Haun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Cases (Obamacare)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legatus v. Sebelius]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Last evening, Judge Richard Cleland of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted an injunction against the HHS contraceptive mandate in Legatus v. Sebelius.  The order is here.  The case is a challenge to the HHS mandate that employers provide health insurance coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, and is brought [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/11/01/a-mixed-bag-michigan-federal-judge-grants-injunctive-relief-in-an-hhs-mandate-challenge/">A Mixed Bag: Michigan Federal Judge Grants Injunctive Relief in an HHS Mandate Challenge</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/11/01/a-mixed-bag-michigan-federal-judge-grants-injunctive-relief-in-an-hhs-mandate-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don Franzen Interviews Justice Scalia on Reading Law</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/24/don-franzen-interviews-justice-scalia-on-reading-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=don-franzen-interviews-justice-scalia-on-reading-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/24/don-franzen-interviews-justice-scalia-on-reading-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>SCOTUSreport</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Antonin Scalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[textualism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Los Angeles Review of Books features Don Franzen&#8217;s extensive interview of Justice Scalia on his new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. The interview begins: FRANZEN: Your Honor, there are already so many treatises written on interpreting text and canons of interpretation, why did you and your co-writer Professor Garner feel that [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/24/don-franzen-interviews-justice-scalia-on-reading-law/">Don Franzen Interviews Justice Scalia on <i>Reading Law</i></a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/24/don-franzen-interviews-justice-scalia-on-reading-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Response to Dale Carpenter on the Second Circuit and Same-Sex Marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/23/a-response-to-dale-carpenter-on-the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-response-to-dale-carpenter-on-the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/23/a-response-to-dale-carpenter-on-the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Whelan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I disagree with Dale Carpenter&#8217;s claim that the First Circuit’s ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act is in any significant way “more limited and incremental” than the Second Circuit’s ruling. I have critiqued both rulings at length on National Review Online’s Bench Memos (First Circuit here and here, Second Circuit here) and will limit [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/23/a-response-to-dale-carpenter-on-the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/">A Response to Dale Carpenter on the Second Circuit and Same-Sex Marriage</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/23/a-response-to-dale-carpenter-on-the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Second Circuit and Same-Sex Marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/22/the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/22/the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dale Carpenter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In 2007, after 40 years together, New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Canada. Two years later, Spyer died, leaving her estate to Windsor. But Windsor was denied the spousal deduction for federal estate taxes because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. On top of her [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/22/the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/">The Second Circuit and Same-Sex Marriage</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/22/the-second-circuit-and-same-sex-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>West Virginia Congressional Districts and Population Equality</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/02/west-virginia-congressional-districts-and-population-equality/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=west-virginia-congressional-districts-and-population-equality</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/02/west-virginia-congressional-districts-and-population-equality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Baude</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennant v. Jefferson County]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Last Tuesday the Supreme Court issued a short, per curiam opinion in Tennant v. Jefferson County, which rejected a challenge to West Virginia&#8217;s recently redrawn Congressional districts.  The one-person-one-vote doctrine requires that legislative districts be close to the same size (so that each person&#8217;s vote is approximately the same share of the total), and there [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/02/west-virginia-congressional-districts-and-population-equality/">West Virginia Congressional Districts and Population Equality</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/10/02/west-virginia-congressional-districts-and-population-equality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FedSoc Teleforum 9/6 on Bickel’s “The Least Dangerous Branch”: Still Relevant 50 Years Later?</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/09/05/fedsoc-teleforum-96-on-bickels-the-least-dangerous-branch-still-relevant-50-years-later/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fedsoc-teleforum-96-on-bickels-the-least-dangerous-branch-still-relevant-50-years-later</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/09/05/fedsoc-teleforum-96-on-bickels-the-least-dangerous-branch-still-relevant-50-years-later/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>SCOTUSreport</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teleforum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upcoming events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In a recent SCOTUSblog symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of Alexander Bickel&#8217;s The Least Dangerous Branch, Roger Pilon argued that the twin themes that emerged from that important volume &#8212; the &#8220;countermajoritarian difficulty&#8221; and the &#8220;passive virtues&#8221; &#8212; were especially influential in shaping the constitutional thought of Bickel&#8217;s colleague, Robert Bork. Whatever their differences, Bork subsequently [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/09/05/fedsoc-teleforum-96-on-bickels-the-least-dangerous-branch-still-relevant-50-years-later/">FedSoc Teleforum 9/6 on Bickel’s “The Least Dangerous Branch”: Still Relevant 50 Years Later?</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/09/05/fedsoc-teleforum-96-on-bickels-the-least-dangerous-branch-still-relevant-50-years-later/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case for &#8220;Constitutional Backdrops&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/29/the-case-for-constitutional-backdrops/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-case-for-constitutional-backdrops</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/29/the-case-for-constitutional-backdrops/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Sachs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[originalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In the last few decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly relied on legal theories&#8211;especially originalism&#8211;that put heavy emphasis on the Constitution&#8217;s text. One common criticism of these theories, though, is that the text leaves too many important questions unanswered. Can the Houses of Congress punish citizens for contempt? Can the President remove executive officers? Can [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/29/the-case-for-constitutional-backdrops/">The Case for &#8220;Constitutional Backdrops&#8221;</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/29/the-case-for-constitutional-backdrops/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tom Goldstein on the Evolution of SCOTUSblog</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/20/tom-goldstein-on-the-evolution-of-scotusblog/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tom-goldstein-on-the-evolution-of-scotusblog</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/20/tom-goldstein-on-the-evolution-of-scotusblog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:11:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>SCOTUSreport</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other News & Analysis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>GoverningWorks features a fascinating interview of Tom Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSblog. Here&#8217;s an excerpt from the transcript: [W]e can track all of our in-bound readers, unless someone takes the highly unusual step of hiding where they’re coming from. And the Supreme Court doesn’t hide itself. It has the IP [Internet Protocol] address “Supreme Court [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/20/tom-goldstein-on-the-evolution-of-scotusblog/">Tom Goldstein on the Evolution of SCOTUSblog</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/20/tom-goldstein-on-the-evolution-of-scotusblog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on EPA&#8217;s Coercion of the States</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/08/more-on-epas-coercion-of-the-states/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-on-epas-coercion-of-the-states</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/08/more-on-epas-coercion-of-the-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Damien M. Schiff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Air Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Cases (Obamacare)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Dakota v. Dole]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An astute reader argues, contrary to my earlier position, that coercion of the states is always unconstitutional because it always amounts to an indirect “commandeering” of the state’s legislative or executive arm.  With respect to Texas’s lawsuit against EPA challenging the agency’s command that the states incorporate greenhouse gas provisions into their state implementation plans, [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/08/more-on-epas-coercion-of-the-states/">More on EPA&#8217;s Coercion of the States</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/08/more-on-epas-coercion-of-the-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NFIB v. Sebelius, Coercion, and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/06/nfib-v-sebelius-coercion-and-the-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nfib-v-sebelius-coercion-and-the-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine</link>
		<comments>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/06/nfib-v-sebelius-coercion-and-the-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Damien M. Schiff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Air Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Cases (Obamacare)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Dakota v. Dole]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusreport.com/?p=2207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act would be unconstitutional if interpreted to condition the entirety of a state’s Medicaid funding on its decision whether to accept the Act’s expansion of Medicaid services.  The Court, through Chief Justice Roberts, explained that such a condition would impermissibly coerce the states and [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/06/nfib-v-sebelius-coercion-and-the-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine/">NFIB v. Sebelius, Coercion, and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.scotusreport.com">SCOTUSreport</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scotusreport.com/2012/08/06/nfib-v-sebelius-coercion-and-the-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.scotusreport.com @ 2013-05-21 09:50:38 -->