Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • Writing for the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief in Luis v. United States, which “argues that if someone has spent or hidden their ill-gotten gain but has additional assets untainted by their crime, the government should be able to freeze the untainted assets.”
  • At ars technica, Joe Mullin discusses Monday’s grants in a pair of patent damages cases; he observes that a “string of Supreme Court patent decisions over the past several years has gone generally in favor of defendants, making it harder for patent holders to win cases and collect large damages.”
  • Natalie Kitroeff of Bloomberg News reports that “a 57-year-old recovering alcoholic who has been convicted on misdemeanor victim intimidation and domestic abuse” may “be the person with the best shot at upending the way U.S. courts treat student debt for bankrupt borrowers.”
  • The NFIB’s blog discusses the group’s amicus brief, in which it urges the Court to review a challenge to San Jose’s affordable housing mandate.
  • At Reason.com, Damon Root urges the Court to review “a challenge to a regulatory rule promulgated by the Connecticut Dental Commission forbidding non-dentists from shining low-powered LED lights into the mouths of paying customers during the course of teeth-whitening services.”
  • At New Private Law, Greg Klass continues his analysis of DIRECTV v. Imburgia.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in DIRECTV. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]

If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scotusblog/pFXs/~3/sY4q976HUS0/