Friday round-up

Friday round-upIn The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that the decision of Justice Neil Gorsuch “to address a conservative group at the Trump International Hotel in Washington next month, less than two weeks before the court is set to hear arguments on Mr. Trump’s travel ban,” has triggered criticism. Additional coverage comes from Arianne de […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that the decision of Justice Neil Gorsuch “to address a conservative group at the Trump International Hotel in Washington next month, less than two weeks before the court is set to hear arguments on Mr. Trump’s travel ban,” has triggered criticism. Additional coverage comes from Arianne de Vogue at CNN, Matthew Nussbaum at Politico and Lydia Wheeler at The Hill.

Briefly:

  • Take Care’s Versus Trump podcast features a discussion with election-law attorney Marc Elias about several upcoming Supreme Court cases that involve voting rights, including a high-profile partisan-gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford.
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the Supreme Court to review a case that offers the justices “an excellent opportunity to preferably overrule, but at least reconsider,” a prior decision requiring “a property owner [to] first sue in state court to ripen a federal takings claim”; he argues that the “state-remedies requirement results in constitutional absurdity: the very state court decision that a property owner must receive in order to ripen their claim simultaneously bars the owner from (re)litigating the issue in federal court.”

 Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upIn The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer reports that in amicus briefs filed this week in Carpenter v. United States, “[s]ome of the world’s biggest tech companies pleaded with the Supreme Court … to update decades-old precedent governing telephones, saying that cell-tracking technology threatens Americans’ most fundamental privacy rights.” Additional coverage comes from Andrew Chung at Reuters, who […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

In The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer reports that in amicus briefs filed this week in Carpenter v. United States, “[s]ome of the world’s biggest tech companies pleaded with the Supreme Court … to update decades-old precedent governing telephones, saying that cell-tracking technology threatens Americans’ most fundamental privacy rights.” Additional coverage comes from Andrew Chung at Reuters, who notes that “[t]he case comes amid growing scrutiny of the surveillance practices of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies and concern among lawmakers across the political spectrum about civil liberties and police evading warrant requirements,” Steven Musil at CNET, and A.J. Dellinger at the International Business Times. At Reason’s Hit & Run blog, Damon Root argues that “’Get a warrant’ is the perfect message for the Supreme Court to tell the government in this case.”

Briefly:

  • In a book review at Jotwell, Steve Vladeck argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ziglar v. Abassi, “a decision deeply hostile to judge-made damages remedies for constitutional violations by federal officers,” “is shamelessly indifferent and stunningly oblivious to the rich history and tradition of such remedies that has been well- and long-documented in the academic literature.”
  • At Balkinization, Marty Lederman unpacks the federalism questions at the heart of Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether a federal statute that prohibits New Jersey from repealing its ban on commercial sports betting is unconstitutional.

 Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upAt BuzzFeed News, Chris Geidner reports that “[o]ne of the country’s top lawyers” has filed a cert petition on behalf of an Arizona death-row inmate who “has been arguing for the past three years that the state’s death penalty law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t do enough to narrow who is eligible for the death […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

At BuzzFeed News, Chris Geidner reports that “[o]ne of the country’s top lawyers” has filed a cert petition on behalf of an Arizona death-row inmate who “has been arguing for the past three years that the state’s death penalty law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t do enough to narrow who is eligible for the death penalty, among those convicted of murder.” Additional coverage comes from Tony Mauro in The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), who reports that “[f]ormer acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal is … asking the court to decide whether ‘the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency.’”

Briefly:

  • In USA Today, Richard Wolf cites two upcoming Supreme Court cases, Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute, which stems from a challenge to Ohio’s voter-roll purge, and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which asks whether mandatory-arbitration agreements that deprive workers of their right to collective proceedings are enforceable, as examples of the “Trump administration … switching sides in some of the nation’s most consequential legal battles.”

  • In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports on the pivotal role Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely play in several high-profile cases on the Supreme Court’s docket for October Term 2017.
  • At E&E News, Amanda Reilly reports that “[t]he Trump administration recently weighed in on two complex interstate water disputes in the Supreme Court, in both cases building on the arguments made by the Obama administration,” and that the administration’s “responses … come as the Supreme Court is considering reports issued by special masters assigned to the cases.”
  • At Balkinization, Mark Tushnet weighs in on Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether a federal statute that prohibits New Jersey from repealing its ban on commercial sports betting is unconstitutional, arguing that “Congress has simply preempted state property law on this issue,” and “[i]t can’t be that the anticommandeering doctrine makes all federal laws preempting state property (or contract or tort) rights unconstitutional.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upBriefly: Constitution Daily looks at three Supreme Court cases involving the Ku Klux Klan that posed “fundamental First Amendment questions about the ability of organized white supremacists to speak and demonstrate in the public forum.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the Supreme Court to review a florist’s First Amendment […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Briefly:

  • Constitution Daily looks at three Supreme Court cases involving the Ku Klux Klan that posed “fundamental First Amendment questions about the ability of organized white supremacists to speak and demonstrate in the public forum.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the Supreme Court to review a florist’s First Amendment challenge to a state antidiscrimination law, arguing that “[w]hile same-sex couples ought to be able to get marriage licenses—if the state is involved in marriage at all—a commitment to equality under the law can’t justify the restriction of private parties’ constitutionally protected rights like freedom of speech or association.”
  • In an op-ed at STAT, Michael Burg weighs in on the court’s recent opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, in which the justices reversed a state court finding  specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs in a multistate lawsuit, arguing that “[b]y foreclosing to plaintiffs state court venues other than those where [defendant] companies are ‘at home’ — generally meaning where they are headquartered or incorporated — the Supreme Court has placed an almost impossible burden on state court litigants.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.]

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upBriefly: In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, noting that “the Supreme Court took its own sweet time” deciding whether to review the “dispute between a gay couple and a baker who refused to make them a wedding cake,” and that “[s]ome liberals wonder … whether a […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, noting that “the Supreme Court took its own sweet time” deciding whether to review the “dispute between a gay couple and a baker who refused to make them a wedding cake,” and that “[s]ome liberals wonder … whether a liberal justice might have tipped the scale,” on the theory that “[i]f the proliferation of cases around the country means Supreme Court intervention is inevitable, … better to take it while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is on the court.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines the effect of lower-court dissents on Supreme Court case grants and outcomes, focusing on whether “some judges’ dissents are given more weight than others.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro argues that to resolve Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell-site-location information from wireless carriers, the Supreme “Court should return to the text of the Fourth Amendment and recognize that data and digital communication are property that are protected by the papers and effects part of the Fourth Amendment.”
  • At TeenVogue, Emma Sarran Webster marks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 24th anniversary on the Supreme Court by looking at four of the justice’s opinions in major cases.
  • In an op-ed at Forbes, Nick Sibilla urges the court to review a case that asks “whether or not the government has to pay entrepreneurs if it destroys their businesses with eminent domain.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upAt his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that in its first merits filing in the Supreme Court on the entry-ban cases, “[t]he Trump Administration, insisting that the presidential order limiting entry to the U.S. of foreign nationals from Mideast nations ‘is not a so-called “Muslim ban,”’ urged the Supreme Court on Thursday evening to throw […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that in its first merits filing in the Supreme Court on the entry-ban cases, “[t]he Trump Administration, insisting that the presidential order limiting entry to the U.S. of foreign nationals from Mideast nations ‘is not a so-called “Muslim ban,”’ urged the Supreme Court on Thursday evening to throw [the cases] out without a decision.” Additional coverage of the government’s filing comes from Mica Rosenberg at Reuters and Richard Wolf at USA Today.

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that a pending cert petition that asks whether “cops in states that allow concealed carry [can] search you just because they think you’re armed” “pits a multi-time felon, five Republican state attorneys general, and a coalition of 10 conservative and gun rights groups against the Republican and vocally pro-gun-rights Trump administration” and “reveals deep tensions between gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights.”

  • At Minnesota Lawyer, Barbara Jones reports on a pending cert petition stemming from a challenge to Minnesota’s civil-commitment program for sex offenders; the case asks what “standard of review … should apply to substantive due process claims brought by the patients.”
  • At The Narrowest Grounds, Asher Steinberg argues that the court’s decision this term in National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, which limited the president’s power to fill executive-branch vacancies, exhibits “confusion about the role legislative history has to play in textualist interpretation.”
  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Tim Schultz draws a parallel between two high-profile cases on next term’s docket, the entry-ban case and the case of the custom-cake baker who refused to supply a cake for a same-sex wedding, arguing that both cases “will challenge our commitment to the First Amendment and our willingness to support its protections for those with whom we deeply disagree.”
  • At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro looks at the ethical concerns that may arise when prominent Supreme Court advocates, believing that “if justices or their clerks see ‘big name’ lawyers on the brief, they may think that in fact the case is important, will be well-argued, and should be granted review—a result that would be against the client’s interest,” “ghostwrite” briefs in opposition to certiorari.

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upBriefly: At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports on the latest appeals-court filing in the entry-ban case, noting that “[t]he Trump Administration’s legal team indicated on Wednesday that it will take the heated controversy over immigration back to the Supreme Court if government power to exclude foreign nationals is not restored shortly by a federal appeals […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports on the latest appeals-court filing in the entry-ban case, noting that “[t]he Trump Administration’s legal team indicated on Wednesday that it will take the heated controversy over immigration back to the Supreme Court if government power to exclude foreign nationals is not restored shortly by a federal appeals court.”
  • In an op-ed at The Hill, Jonathan Scruggs wonders which side corporations will take in the upcoming First Amendment case involving a custom-cake baker who refused to supply a cake for a same-sex wedding; he maintains that “this moment will offer great insight into the current state of our free speech culture, both corporately and generally.”
  • In an op-ed at The Daily Caller, James Gottry urges the court to review a similar case involving a florist, who “faces the loss of everything she owns because her personal exercise of conscience has been recast as personified discrimination.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upIn The Washington Post, Sari Horwitz reports that “[i]n a court filing Monday, Justice [Department] attorneys took the opposite position from the Obama administration in a case that involved the state’s removal of thousands of inactive voters from the Ohio voting rolls” and that the department is now “arguing that the purges of voters are legal under […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

In The Washington Post, Sari Horwitz reports that “[i]n a court filing Monday, Justice [Department] attorneys took the opposite position from the Obama administration in a case that involved the state’s removal of thousands of inactive voters from the Ohio voting rolls” and that the department is now “arguing that the purges of voters are legal under federal law”; she notes that “[t]his brief, unlike the prior one, was not signed by career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division.” Additional coverage of DOJ’s course-reversal comes from Charlie Savage in The New York Times, Jessica Wehrman at The Columbus Dispatch, Jane Timm at NBC News, Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal and Sam Levine at the Huffington Post. At the Election Law Blog, Justin Levitt observes that “it’s quite rare for the DOJ to change course after a filing a brief in the court of appeals: the Solicitor General’s office is often called the “Tenth Justice,” in part because while reversals happen, there’s a thumb on the scale to treat DOJ filings with some internal quasi-precedential weight.” At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern argues that “[t]he department’s political appointees are transforming [a federal law regulating voter-roll upkeep] into a disenfranchisement device.”

Briefly:

  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in cases involving constitutional challenges to state and federal laws, concluding that “[w]ith Justice Gorsuch, the Court now has what looks to be another clear left-right split that may lead to more closely divided decisions” in such cases.
  • In Bloomberg BNA’s Bench Brackets video, Kimberly Robinson and Patrick Gregory “break down last term’s highest highs and lowest lows.”
  • Counting to 5 (podcast) features a look at “how the upcoming October 2017 Supreme Court term is shaping up.”
  • In an op-ed in USA Today, Tony Mauro suggests that the Trump administration and Congress could learn from the Supreme Court’s tradition of civility and mutual respect; he adds that allowing cameras in the courtroom would give the public a view of “a functioning branch of government.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upBriefly: At Fa on First, Wen Fa urges the Supreme Court to review a challenge to a Minnesota law that “prohibits voters from wearing political apparel at the polling place,” arguing that “[b]y criminalizing all sorts of shirts, buttons, and badges, Minnesota has essentially created speech-free zones at polling places across the State” and that […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Fa on First, Wen Fa urges the Supreme Court to review a challenge to a Minnesota law that “prohibits voters from wearing political apparel at the polling place,” arguing that “[b]y criminalizing all sorts of shirts, buttons, and badges, Minnesota has essentially created speech-free zones at polling places across the State” and that a “favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would vindicate the First Amendment rights of voters nationwide.”
  • At NBC News, Julie Moreau reports on the results of a recent study indicating that “the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage … helped to shift Americans’ perception of social norms in support of same-sex marriage,” research that she states may be relevant as the Supreme Court hears upcoming “cases related to anti-LGBTQ discrimination.”
  • In The Washington Examiner, Ryan Lovelace reports that a “nonprofit led by a lawyer for President Trump, Jay Sekulow, is asking the Supreme Court to review a federal court’s blocking of the publication of surreptitiously recorded videos involving abortion providers.”
  • In an analysis for The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog, Bernard Grofman and German Feierherd look at how other countries conduct legislative redistricting as the Supreme Court prepares to consider “the much-anticipated Gill v. Whitford,” which “brings up the hot-button question of whether a state legislature may draw electoral districts that favor one party over another”; they conclude that “redistricting looks quite different elsewhere, for several reasons.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upBriefly: Counting to 5 (podcast) features an interview with Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a nonprofit that advocates for institutional reform of the Supreme Court, on the group’s “recent proposal to impose term limits” on Supreme Court justices. The American Bankruptcy Institute’s Rochelle’s Daily Wire (subscription or registration required) argues that by granting the […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • Counting to 5 (podcast) features an interview with Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a nonprofit that advocates for institutional reform of the Supreme Court, on the group’s “recent proposal to impose term limits” on Supreme Court justices.
  • The American Bankruptcy Institute’s Rochelle’s Daily Wire (subscription or registration required) argues that by granting the pending cert petition in Ivey v. First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, the “Supreme Court can resolve a split of circuits and in the process prevent debtors from winning discharges despite having committed fraudulent transfers with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com