As the entire nation seems to be discussing who will be the next Supreme Court Justice, the Supreme Court itself is simply continuing on with its day-to-day business, hearing oral arguments and issuing decisions. On Monday, the Court re-convened for its April sitting. The two most exciting events of the week were the oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the issuance of an opinion in United States v. Stevens.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez questions whether a public university has the right to deny formal recognition (and therefore funding and access to space) to a student-run organization that discriminates on the basis of religious beliefs and sexual orientation. (The Union for Reform Judaism signed onto an amicus brief in support of the school in this case.)
During arguments on Monday, the Court appeared predictably divided–with the liberal Justices generally in favor of nondiscrimination and the conservative Justices concerned that the nondiscrimination policy essentially amounts to discrimination against religious groups.
The predominant sentiment throughout oral arguments, however, was confusion. Justice Kennedy expressed exasperation at the outset about not knowing all of the facts of the case and Justice Breyer echoed his concerns. Because the Justices seemed uncertain about the exact question that they were attempting to answer, it’s possible that the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds. If not, we can expect a decision sometime this summer.
On Tuesday, the decision in United States v. Stevens declared unconstitutional a 1999 law banning portrayals of animal cruelty. The law applied to any visual or auditory depictions of living animals being “intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violated the law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place.” In theory, this law was crafted to curtail the internet sale of so-called “crush videos,” which display small animals being crushed, often by women’s high heels. In practice, the law extended much further. For example, because hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, no one in the District was permitted to possess or sell videos that depicted hunting–even if the hunting was conducted legally.
The Court ruled that because this law was too broad, it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 8-member majority, noted that while some categories of speech have been excluded from this constitutional protection, “including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct,” depictions of animal cruelty should not be excluded wholesale.
The opinion specifically notes that a different law, written more narrowly, banning crush videos and other depictions of extreme forms of animal cruelty, might pass constitutional muster.
Despite 
