SCOTUS Podcasts: The Federalist Society has podcasts on the Kennedy v. Louisiana argument by Bill Otis and on the Baze v. Rees decision by Kent Scheidegger.

Reaction to Baze Commentary: SCOTUSblog has posted a commentary by Eric Berger, an assistant professor at University of Nebraska College of Law. Berger's commentary responds to Kent Scheidegger's April 18th commentary that the Court's opinions in Baze v. Rees will allow states with protocol's similar to Kentucky's to move forward with their executions. Berger argues that because there are often discrepancies between States' written protocols and actual implementation of the protocol, cases challenging whether actual lethal injection implementation causes severe pain may still be necessary.

Kennedy and Eighth Amendment jurisprudence: Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy has posted his thoughts on the oral arguments in Kennedy v. Louisiana here. Berman's post expresses his hope that the Court's Kennedy decision will "revive" the Eighth Amendment to give the current vague standard of "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" clearly defined parameters.

Does the Commerce Clause Allow Congress to Regulate Interstate Moves By Sex Offenders?: Ilya Somin posted this comment at the Volokh Conspiracy on a federal court decision to strike down part of the Adam Walsh Act because the Act violated the Commerce Clause. Somin states the Adam Walsh Act does not violate the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich. Somin argues that any interstate movement by a sex offender qualifies as "economic activity" as defined by Raich because the offender is engaged in the consumption of commodities - such as gas and food - as the offender moves from one state to another. Somin believes that while this definition of "economic activity" is too broad, the Adam Walsh Act is valid under current precedent.

Ninth Circuit Allows Border Search of Laptop: Howard Bashman at How Appealing discussed the Ninth Circuit's decision that will allow the prosecution of a child pornography case to go forward. The defendant in United States v. Arnold had successfully argued to the district court that reasonable suspicion was required to search his laptop at the border. Today's Ninth Circuit opinion rejected Arnold's argument that "laptop computers are fundamentally different from traditional closed containers," and, therefore, a higher standard of "particularized suspicion" is not required to search a laptop at the border.