From SCOTUSblog: Editor's Note : On Monday we expect orders at 9:30 a.m. followed by opinions at 10. We will begin live-blogging at 9:15. (Times are Eastern.)
Here are two that Scriber watches (and worries about) in plain English from Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a lawsuit filed by the Arizona legislature that challenges an amendment to the state constitution, passed by the state’s voters in 2000, which took the power to draw boundaries for federal congressional districts away from the legislature and gave it to an independent redistricting commission. The legislature argues that the transfer of redistricting control to the commission violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which provides that the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for . . . Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." Voters and state legislators in California, which uses a similar independent commission, are also watching this case carefully.
There is only one decision remaining from the Court’s March sitting. It will come from a trio of cases, argued together, that will go by the name of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency because that case was filed first. ... This is a dispute between the federal government, on the one hand, and states and industry groups, on the other, that arises from the EPA’s efforts to regulate pollution – and in particular mercury – from power plants. The question before the Court is whether, when deciding whether it is going to regulate the emissions from power plants, the EPA must also consider how much it will cost the power plants to comply with the new regulations. States and industry groups had argued that the EPA is required to consider compliance costs at the outset, while the EPA argued that it does not have to consider costs until later in the process, when it issues specific pollution standards. Justice Antonin Scalia is the only Justice who has not yet written a majority opinion for March, so he is likely to be writing this one – good news for the states and industry groups, in all likelihood. [Scriber: Uh-oh!]