Despite all the headlines that were made when President Barack Obama voiced his support for same-sex marriage, the views the president expressed were personal and did not reflect the views of the administration. But as major cases involving the rights of same-sex couples to marry and receive federal benefits head to the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration may have to make a more affirmative statement about its official stance on the issue.

Obama, in his comments to ABC News last week, was careful to clarify that he believed that issues involving the legality of same-sex marriage should be worked out state-by-state. A careful parsing of Obama’s words revealed, according to SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, “suggests strongly that he is not committed to making same-sex marriage a right protected by the Constitution.”

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin notes, high profile cases – including the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 – are expected to be taken up by the Supreme Court as soon as later this year. In that case, as well as a case by legally married Massachusetts residents suing to receive federal benefits, could result in increased pressure on the White House.

Should the Court take up the cases, Obama “will surely be asked by advocates for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] rights to support a decision upholding a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would take it out of the hands of the states,” Theodore Olson, one of the attorneys leading the challenge to Prop 8, told the WSJ.

First Lady Michelle Obama has become a style icon, impacting the fashion industry in ways not seen since Jacqueline Kennedy occupied the same residence.

But Obama, who is also a lawyer, is also impacting the fashions of high powered women in law firms across the country.

No longer are female power lawyers bound to the uniform of boxy suits and drab colors like black or brown or navy. Now high powered women sport attire full of color, prints and textures – whether they come from Barney’s or Old Navy.

As the Wall Street Journal observes:

“A pedigreed lawyer, Ms. Obama mixes high fashion with low—as do many working women these days. Her ease in baring her shoulders at state functions and her willingness to wear vivid prints, curvy shapes and fashion-forward designs has freed other women to do the same. ‘I think she is allowing women to be more brave and trust themselves more,’ says [fashion designer Rachel] Roy.”

As President Barack Obama prepares to formally launch his reelection campaign and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continues to stump, expect the Supreme Court to be a major campaign issue.

Two very high profile cases – the challenge to the federal health care law and the challenge to the Arizona immigration law authorizing local and state police with immigration enforcement powers – will be decided before the election, reminding voters of how important the Court is. And equally headline-grabbing cases – dealing with affirmative action in colleges and perhaps California’s same-sex marriage ban and the Defense of Marriage Act – lie on the horizon for the justices to take up next term.

All this comes at a time when the Court is nearly equally divided ideologically. And four of the nine justices are over the age of 70: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (79), Antonin Scalia (76), Anthony Kennedy (75), and Steven Breyer (73).

This week Obama indicated that he is fully aware of the major role the Court will play in the campaign.

“There are going to be some Supreme Court appointments probably if you look actuarially for the next president,” Obama said at a fundraiser with former President Clinton, according to the Washington Examiner. “There’s so much at stake here.”

Romney has already spoken about the importance of Supreme Court appointment power, and pledged to nominate judges with ideologies in line with the Court’s most conservative jurists.

(Romney photo by Gage Skidmore)

Republican lawmakers are officially jumping into the legal fight over President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And leading the GOP senators’ fight is a man who was blocked from a judicial appointment by Senate Democrats years ago.

Senate Republicans said yesterday they plan to file an amicus brief in the case challenging Obama’s authority to make the controversial appointments, according to the Washington Post. The White House has defended the validity of the recess appointments, and said they were necessary to keep the agencies operating as GOP lawmakers stalled nominees’ confirmation votes.

The Republican lawmakers brief will be authored by Miguel Estrada, a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher whose own judicial nomination to the D.C. Circuit was filibustered by Senate Democrats in 2001. (The news came, interestingly enough, the same day Estrada argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

“We think it’s the appropriate case,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., according to the Post. “And I thought that Miguel’s own experience with the confirmation process, that it might make particularly good sense for him to represent us in this particular undertaking.”

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor won confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, much was made of the fact that she was the first Latina to sit on the bench. Likewise, the confirmation of Justice Elena Kagan marked the first time the Court featured three women.

But now the Obama administration, in touting its judicial appointment record, is hailing another judicial milestone: the confirmation of the first disabled justice on the Court.

That sent some Court watchers and writers momentarily scratching their heads and asking who that justice might be. Sure, a few of the justices wear glasses, and Sotomayor has been seen sporting a cast or brace on her ankle or knee, but those were due to injuries she suffered, not a permanent disability.

But Sotomayor does fall within the definition of disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the justice is a diabetic. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a child.

The disease has clearly not held Sotomayor back, causing some like New York magazine’s Dan Amira to question whether it “substantially limits one or more of a [her] major life activities” under the ADA. But under the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, that is no longer necessary. Diabetes fits the bill because it “substantially limits endocrine function.“

As several of the justices of the Supreme Court spent the off week attending events around the country, members of the media asked them obligatory questions about the pending challenge to the federal health care law, which was heard last week.

Justices usually demur when faced with such requests, refusing to make out-of-court statements on pending cases and sticking to other subjects, like antelope hunting.

But Justice Antonin Scalia took an interesting approach to not answering a question about President Barack Obama’s much discussed “judicial activism” comment, according to the AP (via the WSJ’s Law Blog):

“We don’t respond to criticism,” Scalia said in comments to students at the University of Southern Mississippi. “Judges use what’s known as the rope-a-dope trick. It’s judicial tradition.”

What is a “rope-a-dope,” you ask? Law Blog explains that it’s a boxing move used by Muhammad Ali, whereby a boxer leans against the ropes as his opponent pummels away. The shots that are not blocked are absorbed by the rope’s elasticity. Once the opponent is tired, the boxer has conserved enough energy to make a knockout punch.

So did Scalia suggest that he’d take Obama’s shots for now, only to come back with a ruling that knocks out the health care law? Only nine people know for sure – the justices took their initial vote on the case during a closed-door session last Friday.

When the 5th Circuit speaks, the Justice Department listens – and responds.

In a memorandum to a panel of federal judges hearing a challenge to the federal health care law, Attorney General Eric Holder backed comments made earlier in the week by President Barack Obama that courts ought to tread lightly when considering challenges to laws passed by Congress.

But Holder said the president’s comments in no way reflected a change in the Justice Department’s views on judicial authority, nor did they imply that courts do not have authority to consider constitutional challenges to federal laws.

Earlier this week, Obama suggested at a news conference that overturning the health care law would amount to “judicial activism.”

For more on Holder’s memo, see the full story on Lawyers USA online.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has chimed in on the matter.

“The president crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it,” McConnell said during a speech on Thursday, according to CNN. “Respectfully, I would suggest the president back off.”

After President Barack Obama warned that a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down parts or all of the health care law would be an act of “judicial activism,” Attorney General Eric Holder echoed that sentiment Wednesday.

Speaking at an event in Chicago, Holder called the president’s comments “appropriate.”

“Courts have the final say in the constitutionality of statutes,” Holder said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “Courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people … the Congress … pass.”

Holder’s comments came after 5^th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, part of a panel hearing a challenge to the health care law’s constitutionality, asked the Justice Department to clarify its position on courts’ authority to strike down federal laws. Smith issued the demand after becoming concerned by Obama’s comments, the Washington Post reported.

During a court hearing, Smith demanded that the Justice Department submit the three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday, a lawyer in the courtroom told the Post.

The judge “said the president has been saying that unelected branches of government shouldn’t be activist and strike down federal laws,’’ the lawyer told the Post, speaking on condition of anonymity.

One week after the U.S. Supreme Court opened oral arguments in the federal challenge to the federal health care law, President Barack Obama expressed confidence that the law would be upheld. Striking the law down, the president warned, would be an act of judicial activism.

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said during a news conference Monday.  “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint – that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Obama stressed that the individual mandate at the heart of the constitutional challenge is a crucial element of the law.

“I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said.  “So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this.  And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had an offer he hoped Senate Republicans would not refuse: a quick vote on the GOP-backed Jobs Act in exchange for bringing 17 judicial nominations to a vote.

But according to NBC’s Libby Leist (via The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog) Republicans rebuffed the move, accusing Reid of holding up the jobs bill to force a vote in nominated federal judges. Republicans have been blocking judicial nominees in protest of President Barack Obama’s recent recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In making the offer for a swift vote on the JOBS bill, Reid said on the floor: “The only thing preventing the Senate from moving quickly to tackle [the JOBS Act] is what we’ve had this whole Congress: obstructionism by my friends, the Republicans.”

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fired back. “I think most Senators would rather be working on things that the American people believe would actually help create jobs than to see the Senate embroiled in another controversy which I fear my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to precipitate,” McConnell said.