Federal Judiciary

Friday round-up

By Kali Borkoski

On Monday the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the consolidated campaign finance cases Arizona Free Enterprise Club?s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett. At issue is whether states are prohibited from giving candidates who have accepted state campaign funding additional funding  to compensate for large amounts of spending against them by privately funded candidates or independent groups. At Slate, Richard Hasen explores the possible tension between ?the ?more speech is better? theory underlying Citizens United? and a ruling by the Court that ?more speech is unfair?? in McComish.

At the Huffington Post, Fatima Goss Graves discusses the potential implications of the Court?s ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class-action/gender-discrimination case scheduled for oral argument on Tuesday; Ariane de Vogue of ABC News also previews the case.

Earlier this week, the Court heard oral argument in Turner v. Rogers, concerning indigent parents? right to an attorney in civil contempt proceedings that could result in jail time. At the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss has highlights of the argument. Amanda linked to more coverage of Turner yesterday.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on March 25, 2011 (boomark / email).