The U.S. Supreme Court said in a broad ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The vote was 5 to 4 with Justice Anthony Kennedy reading the majority opinion.

In a related case, the court did not make a ruling on California’s Proposition 8 meaning that same-sex marriage is once again legal in the nation’s most populous state. The ruling has no effect on other states, however.

Wonk Wire has a round up of analysis and opinion.

Rick Hasen explains how Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a conservative Supreme Court majority in Shelby County v. Holder, crippled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

“In the Shelby decision, we see a somewhat more open version of a pattern that is characteristic of the Roberts court, in which the conservative justices tee up major constitutional issues for dramatic reversal. First the court wrecked campaign finance law in Citizens United. On Tuesday it took away a crown jewel of the civil rights movement. And as we saw in Monday’s Fisher case, affirmative action is next in line, even if the court wants to wait another year or two to pull the trigger. Imagine striking down affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act in the same week!”

“In fairness, I doubt that will ever happen. I just cannot imagine — I’m just being honest — Congress ever
coming to terms with what they could agree on.”

— Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), quoted by the Huffington Post, about the likelihood of lawmakers coming together to restore the Voting Rights Act after today’s Supreme Court decision.

Dana Millbank: “The most remarkable thing about the Supreme Court’s opinions announced Monday was not what the justices wrote or said. It was what Samuel Alito did.”

“The associate justice, a George W. Bush appointee, read two opinions, both 5-4 decisions that split the court along its usual right-left divide. But Alito didn’t stop there. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, Alito visibly mocked his colleague.”

“Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the high court, was making her argument about how the majority opinion made it easier for sexual harassment to occur in the workplace when Alito, seated immediately to Ginsburg’s left, shook his head from side to side in disagreement, rolled his eyes and looked at the ceiling.”

The Supreme Court “has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look,” the AP reports.

“The court’s 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, says a federal appeals court needs to subject the University of Texas admission plan to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.”

Wonk Wire will round up reaction.

Decisions on marriage equality cases and the Voting Rights Act were not announced but could come tomorrow.

Lloyd Green: “With Monday the last day left on its calendar, the Supreme Court is expected to signal this coming week where it stands in the scrum over tradition versus modernity, civil rights, and the ’60s, as it is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the University of Texas’s affirmative action program, the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage in California, and the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The status quo may take a big hit.”

SCOTUSblog: “At least one additional decision day is inevitable next week, and the
Court may issue additional orders as well.”

Rick Hasen: “This term too could end with surprises. One possibility is that a court majority will decide that it never should have taken California’s Proposition 8 same sex-marriage case to begin with (because those supporting the law did not have legal standing to defend it), and the case could be dismissed over the strenuous objections of other justices.”

“We just don’t know yet. There are 11 cases remaining for the court to decide, and it is likely that all 11 will be decided by the end of next week. But there are no guarantees. The court has gone into July to issue opinions when necessary.”

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled “that human genes extracted from the body can’t be patented, a victory for doctors and patients who argued that such patents interfere with scientific research and the practice of medicine,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The court was handing down one of its most significant rulings in the age of molecular medicine, deciding who may own the fundamental building blocks of life.”

Each Monday for the rest of the month, the Supreme Court will hand down rulings from this term on affirmative action, same-sex marriage, civil rights, and genetic patents. The Daily Beast looks at what’s at stake.

President Obama on will nominate a slate of judges today to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, “an aggressive move that is likely to spark swift resistance from Senate Republicans who say the court is underworked and does not need additional judges,” Roll Call reports.

The move “sends a strong message that he intends to push for the nominees in a way that he has not lobbied for his other lower-court choices. Obama has never appeared alongside a judicial nominee other than for the Supreme Court, according to advocates.”

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor “made a plea for preserving the impartiality and independence of the American judicial system,” the Chicago Tribune reports.

In particular, she said she opposes the election of judges.

Said O’Connor: “I think there are many who think of judges as politicians in robes. In many states, that’s what they are… They seem to think judges should be a reflex of the popular will.”

The Week: “As the president prepares an aggressive push for his judicial nominees, Republicans are calling foul.”

Jeffrey Toobin: “The Court may agree to hear one or more abortion cases in its next term. For the most part, these cases have their roots in the Republican landslides in the 2010 midterm elections. At the time, those electoral victories were largely portrayed as being based on economics; the Tea Party was often described as almost libertarian in orientation. But soon after new state legislators took office it became clear that social issues, and especially abortion, were among their highest priorities. In state after state, those Tea Party lawmakers passed new restrictions on abortion, and as the restrictions have taken effect challenges to them have started to work their way through the courts.”

President Obama “will soon accelerate his efforts to put a lasting imprint on the country’s judiciary by simultaneously nominating three judges to an important federal court, a move that is certain to unleash fierce Republican opposition and could rekindle a broader partisan struggle over Senate rules,” the New York Times reports.

“In trying to fill the three vacancies on the 11-member United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at once, Mr. Obama will be adopting a more aggressive nomination strategy. He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees.”

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has been hospitalized following a bicycle accident in Washington, D.C., ABC News reports.

He underwent “reverse shoulder replacement surgery” — which Gawker correctly notes “sounds just awful.”

It’s the third bicycle mishap Breyer has had since being appointed to the court.

New York Times: “With a coordination and an energy that echo a Supreme Court nomination fight, the Obama administration is pushing for the confirmation of a senior Justice Department lawyer to the country’s most prestigious appellate court. If the effort fails, it could lead to a confrontation with the Senate over the long-simmering issue of judicial nominees.”

Jeffrey Toobin: “The next Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins on Wednesday afternoon, April 10th. Technically, Sri Srinivasan is just a candidate for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but few are misled. The stakes in this nomination are clear: if Srinivasan passes this test and wins confirmation, he’ll be on the Supreme Court before President Obama’s term ends.”

“Srinivasan, who is forty-six years old, is currently the Obama
Administration’s principal deputy solicitor general. He’s had twenty or
so arguments in the Supreme Court, including part of the
Administration’s attack on the Defense of Marriage Act last month.”

President Obama “has pressed senators from both parties in recent weeks to confirm a new federal judge for one of the country’s most powerful courts, using an aggressive strategy to campaign for a judicial nominee whom White House officials consider a potentially crucial figure in boosting the president’s second-term agenda,” the Washington Post reports.

“The effort reflects a new White House effort to tilt in its favor the conservative-dominated U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is one notch below the Supreme Court and considers many challenges to executive actions.”