Friday round-up

Friday round-upBriefly: For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “[t]he Supreme Court meets behind closed doors [today] to weigh a question that could shape the political power of California for the decade ahead[:] At issue is the Trump administration’s plan to ask all households for the first time since 1950 whether occupants are U.S. […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “[t]he Supreme Court meets behind closed doors [today] to weigh a question that could shape the political power of California for the decade ahead[:] At issue is the Trump administration’s plan to ask all households for the first time since 1950 whether occupants are U.S. citizens.”
  • Alex Swoyer reports for The Washington Times that “Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday the high court is a prime example of how people who disagree can actually get along with one another and even have some fun together, saying she has particular respect for her colleague Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.”
  • At The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that “there are currently two retirement dramas under way at the Court—one semi-public and the other semi-private—and they both have the potential to reshape the meaning of the Constitution for decades.”
  • At The National Law Review, Ellen Shapiro and others discuss a new cert petition “seeking clarification of the duty to update under the federal securities laws.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upIn an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse writes that Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote last week in June Medical Services v. Gee to temporarily block a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals was not surprising, because “circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse writes that Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote last week in June Medical Services v. Gee to temporarily block a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals was not surprising, because “circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up to a stunning act of judicial defiance” by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. At Take Care, Brianne Gorod and Rebecca Damante argue that “what Roberts does next will tell us a lot—about him and the trajectory of the Court he leads.” At The Interdependent Third Branch, Lawrence Friedman maintains that “[m]ore interesting than the Chief voting to impose the stay was Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent—the only separate opinion,” which suggests that “the Chief Justice has another colleague who appreciates that the Court’s ability to perform its constitutionally assigned role is inextricably connected to the esteem in which it is held.”

At Take Care, Leah Litman asserts that last week’s two stay orders, in June Medical Services and Dunn v. Ray, an Alabama death-penalty case, “underscore how procedural rules and procedural maneuvers (or at least the procedural rules the Court invoked in Ray and June Medical Services) are deeply substantive in that they ask the Court to make a determination about who should bear the risk of error in each case, and when (or under what circumstances), procedural rules should be forgiven.” In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Luke Goodrich suggests that Ray’s execution “after the U.S. Supreme Court refused his petition to have an imam beside him as he died” was “unfortunate and unjust,” but that “accusations that the Supreme Court’s decision reflects anti-Muslim bias are also mistaken.”

At The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard interviews four people on both sides of the dispute in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property. In an op-ed for Fox News, Todd Starnes points to a “new survey conducted by George Barna of Metaformation indicat[ing] that an overwhelming number of Americans, young and old, believe the war memorial should not be torn down.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

Briefly:

  • For AP, Mark Sherman reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has missed a month of Supreme Court arguments as she recovers from lung cancer surgery[, b]ut she’s not the first justice to be away for a while and her absence hardly compares with those of some of her predecessors.”
  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro asks First Amendment scholars and advocates for their reactions to Roberts’ recent description of himself as “’probably the most aggressive defender of the First Amendment on the court now.’”
  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Scott Douglas Gerber assesses Justice Clarence Thomas’ “impact on American law,” observing that “[h]is most lasting influence is almost certainly going to be on civil rights law, a fact that is particularly important to note during Black History Month.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upBriefly: At CNN, Ariane de Vogue and Ted Barrett report that “Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a supporter of abortion rights who cast a critical vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said in an interview with CNN that despite his vote in a recent abortion access case, [June Medical Services v. Gee,] she did not believe […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At CNN, Ariane de Vogue and Ted Barrett report that “Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a supporter of abortion rights who cast a critical vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said in an interview with CNN that despite his vote in a recent abortion access case, [June Medical Services v. Gee,] she did not believe Kavanaugh would ultimately vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that “the Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for acting soon – probably on Friday – on the constitutional controversy over asking everyone living in America about their citizenship, as part of the 2020 census,” by “plac[ing] the census dispute on the agenda for the Justices’ private conference on Friday morning.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman tracks the involvement of “friends of the court” at the certiorari stage “in cases with direct financial implications that the justices later heard on the merits between the 2008 and 2018 Court terms.”
  • NFIB weighs in on Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices will reconsider precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, arguing that those precedents “create[] a perverse incentive for federal agencies to use ambiguous language when promulgating regulations.”

  • A Washington Legal Foundation program (video) assesses October Term 2018 at its midpoint.
  • At ACS Blog, Sirine Shebaya maintains that the court’s 5-4 decision last week to allow Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate who had challenged the state’s refusal to permit an imam to be by his side when he died “signals that this Supreme Court majority is adopting a jurisprudence of religious liberty, not for all, but only for a chosen few.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Jeff Overley reports that in Cochise Consultancy v. United States, ex rel. Hunt, “[t]he U.S. Department of Justice is endorsing a relatively long time limit for whistleblowers to launch False Claims Act suits, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that FCA cases not joined by the government don’t need to start sooner.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.]

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upIn an op-ed for The New York Times, Alan Cross weighs in on the court’s 5-4 decision last week to allow Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate who had challenged Alabama’s refusal to permit an imam to be by his side when he died, noting that “[w]hat has gone largely unnoticed, but is in fact […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Alan Cross weighs in on the court’s 5-4 decision last week to allow Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate who had challenged Alabama’s refusal to permit an imam to be by his side when he died, noting that “[w]hat has gone largely unnoticed, but is in fact much more disturbing, is what Alabama did while the Ray case made its way through the courts: To further protect itself from Mr. Ray’s challenge, the state indicated it would end the practice of having a chaplain or spiritual adviser in the death chamber altogether.” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that “[a]side from acknowledging the religious discrimination of their previous policy, this move matched similarly fraught strategies of addressing racial discrimination claims during the civil-rights era.” At The Atlantic, Wajahat Ali wonders “[h]ow … these five justices [would] have responded if all the facts were the same but Ray were a Christian and the imam were a priest,” and he suggests that “[i]f the free-exercise clause allows you not to bake and sell a cake, maybe it should also allow you to have an imam at your own execution.”

Briefly:

  • Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court, that yesterday the court released its April argument calendar, which “is perhaps most noteworthy for what it does not currently include: the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.”
  • At Lawfare, Steve Vladeck urges the justices to review Larrabee v. United States, a cert petition on the list for Friday’s conference, and to “hold that retired service members are no longer part of the ‘land and naval forces’ for purposes of the Constitution—and thus can be tried only by civilian, rather than military, courts for offenses committed after leaving active duty.”
  • At E&E News, Ellen Gilmer reports that “[t]he Supreme Court is halfway through its current term, but the bulk of its environmental issues are still awaiting resolution.”
  • At Take Care, Leah Litman explains how Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s order in June Medical Services v. Gee, which blocked a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect pending appeal, shows “how reproductive justice supporters were exactly right about Justice Kavanaugh in particular.”
  • At The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard breaks down the oral arguments in reargued takings case Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania and in Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., about the scope of the costs awarded to a prevailing party in a copyright case.

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upAmy Howe covers last week’s Supreme Court news, including action “in cases asking the justices to intervene in cases involving the death penalty and abortion,” in a podcast at Howe on the Court. At First Mondays (podcast), Howe joins the hosts to expand on those topics. At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery observes that after […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Amy Howe covers last week’s Supreme Court news, including action “in cases asking the justices to intervene in cases involving the death penalty and abortion,” in a podcast at Howe on the Court. At First Mondays (podcast), Howe joins the hosts to expand on those topics.

At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery observes that after last Thursday’s order in in June Medical Services v. Gee, in which a divided court blocked a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect pending appeal, “[i]t’s highly likely that abortion will loom large at the Supreme Court next term.” Greg Stohr reports at Bloomberg that “[b]ehind the raw vote total were nuanced positions staked out by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the two jurists who probably will determine the pace and ultimate destination of the court’s ideological shift.” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that “[w]hen it comes to abortion rights, the five-justice conservative bloc seems split into three camps.” At Law.com, Tony Mauro observes that “[e]ven though Roberts signed on to a divided 5-4 opinion, he may have done so to defuse the abortion issue for the time being and make the outcome seem less driven by ideology or policy preferences.” Another look at Roberts’ “competing impulses” comes from Adam Liptak in The New York Times. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes suggests that the orders in the abortion case and in a 5-4 decision to allow the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama who had challenged the state’s refusal to allow an imam to be present at his execution “provided new insight into the alliances on the reconstituted Supreme Court.” Commentary comes from Charles Pierce at Esquire.

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin looks at two pending cert petitions in capital cases involving racially biased remarks by jurors.
  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, James Conde explains “two ways in which the Supreme Court could avoid the constitutional concerns posed by the Fourth Circuit’s decision” in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a statute that allows recipients of junk faxes to sue the senders for damages.
  • For the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on three recent actions by the Supreme Court “that did not involve deciding a case, yet nonetheless provided a likely harbinger of the future,” noting that “[t] actions reflect the court’s new composition and surely please conservatives but are very troubling to liberals.”
  • In two posts at the Election Law Blog, here and here, Nicholas Stephanopolous presents the results of a paper he wrote with Chris Warshaw analyzing the associational effects of partisan gerrymandering; they found that “parties that are victimized by gerrymandering are impaired in their performance of several key associational functions” and that “[t]hese handicaps … are substantively large, statistically significant no matter how gerrymandering is measured, and roughly equal in size at the congressional and state house levels.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upLast night the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the more liberal justices, blocked a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect pending appeal. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Last night the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the more liberal justices, blocked a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect pending appeal. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report that “[b]y staying the effect of the lower-court ruling, the justices likely committed themselves to giving a full review of the Louisiana case during their next term, which begins in October.” Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that “[o]nly Justice Kavanaugh published a dissent, taking a middle position that acknowledged the key precedent and said he would have preferred more information on the precise effect of the law.” At his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf argues that “[n]o justice who was committed to overruling the Court’s abortion jurisprudence has ever voted to block an abortion law from going into effect,” so Roberts’ decision to vote in favor of the stay suggests “that he is at least in a go-slow mode.”

The justices also voted 5-4 yesterday to lift a lower-court order that had blocked the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama who had argued that the state’s refusal to allow an imam to attend his execution when it would have allowed a Christian chaplain to be present violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. This blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court, comes from Amy Howe. Ivana Hrynkiw reports for AL.com that Ray was executed last night.

Briefly:

  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, James Conde weighs in on PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of “junk faxes” to sue the senders for damages; he contends that “the Fourth Circuit’s unusual interpretation of the Hobbs Act in PDR raises serious constitutional concerns.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upBriefly: At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., sent a letter last month to “Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Court Clerk Scott Harris, decrying ‘the court’s practice of routinely accepting amicus curiae briefs from special interest groups that fail to disclose their donors.’” At Justia’s Verdict blog, Samuel Estreicher writes that Kisor […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., sent a letter last month to “Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Court Clerk Scott Harris, decrying ‘the court’s practice of routinely accepting amicus curiae briefs from special interest groups that fail to disclose their donors.’”
  • At Justia’s Verdict blog, Samuel Estreicher writes that Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices will reconsider precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, “presents an opportunity to make clear that Chevron-type deference is inappropriate and that at most Skidmore respect may be appropriate,” and he cautions that “[t]he Court should do no more; it certainly should not raise questions generally about Chevron deference that rests on a congressional delegation of authority not present in the Auer context.
  • At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick looks at June Medical Services v. Gee, in which the court has been asked to grant an emergency stay from an appeals court ruling upholding “a 2014 law enacted in Louisiana requiring any abortion provider to get admitting privileges at a hospital that’s within 30 miles of the clinic where they work,” remarking that “[t]he real story here is how the appeals court managed to distinguish Louisiana’s law from the virtually identical rule in Texas, the one struck down only two years earlier.”
  • In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Robert Tembekjian explains why the Supreme Court should adopt an ethics code.

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upBriefly: At USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[a]mong the issues that deeply divide the Supreme Court[,] … one of the most personal is whether to take their reserved front-row seats for the president’s annual State of the Union address,” and that “[f]our of nine justices attended President Trump’s delayed address Tuesday night, led as usual by Chief Justice John […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[a]mong the issues that deeply divide the Supreme Court[,] … one of the most personal is whether to take their reserved front-row seats for the president’s annual State of the Union address,” and that “[f]our of nine justices attended President Trump’s delayed address Tuesday night, led as usual by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has lamented the partisan nature of the event.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, William Yeatman is skeptical of claims that a victory for the challengers in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices will reconsider precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, “would rock the foundations of administrative law.”
  • At Rewire.News’ Boom! Lawyered podcast, Jessica Mason Pieklo and Imani Gandy note that “[t]he Supreme Court issued a stay against an anti-choice law in Louisiana—but only for a few days, perhaps,” and they “try to make sense of this puzzling move by the Court and what might happen next.”
  • At Huffpost, Paul Blumenthal writes that some progressives “are turning to a new strategy to keep the [Supreme Court] from damaging their policy priorities: presenting arguments to its conservative justices in a language they understand.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Alan Ellis and others weigh in on United States v. Haymond, a constitutional challenge to a statute that required a judge to reimprison a sex offender found to have violated the conditions of his supervised release by possessing child pornography, noting that a victory for the defendant would “will have far-reaching implications not just for sex offenders, but for the tens of thousands of individuals currently on supervised release[,] and perhaps even add another nail in the coffin of judicial sentencing based on uncharged conduct not found beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upBriefly: Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday night made her first public appearance since undergoing cancer surgery in December, attending a celebration of her life presented in song.” For The Detroit News, Jonathan Oosting reports that yesterday Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a request to delay a trial […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Briefly:

  • Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday night made her first public appearance since undergoing cancer surgery in December, attending a celebration of her life presented in song.”
  • For The Detroit News, Jonathan Oosting reports that yesterday Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a request to delay a trial in Michigan, scheduled to begin today, in a case involving  claims “that maps approved by the Republican-led Legislature in 2011 intentionally diluted the power of Democratic voters to benefit GOP politicians.”
  • At SCOTUS OA, Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag analyze the “clarifying” reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, in which the justices have been asked to reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution.
  • At Greenwire (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that in Kisor v. Wilkie, “[e]lectric utilities, energy producers and industry groups are urging the Supreme Court to strike down an agency deference rule they believe gives the executive branch too much power.”
  • At The National Law Review, Lawrence Weinstein and Jeffrey Warshafsky look at PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., in which the justices will “consider the amount of deference a federal court is required to give the Federal Communications Commission in determining what constitutes an unsolicited advertisement within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”

  • Mark Sherman reports for AP that “[t]he outcome of a fight over a Louisiana law regulating abortion providers could signal whether a fortified conservative majority on the Supreme Court is willing to cut back on abortion rights.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Erin Wilcox urges the court to review a lower-court decision involving Wisconsin’s right-to-work law, which imposes a time limit on automatic union-dues deductions, arguing that “[i]n recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that when it comes to union/employee relationships, the freedom of individual employees is most important.”
  • At The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard breaks down the oral arguments in Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing.

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upBriefly: At The Economist’s Espresso blog, Steven Mazie reports that “[t]his week the Supreme Court decides [in June Medical Services v. Gee] whether a Louisiana abortion law will go into effect,” and that “[h]ow the justices handle this case will give a clue as to whether Roe v Wade, the ruling in 1973 that recognised abortion […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • At The Economist’s Espresso blog, Steven Mazie reports that “[t]his week the Supreme Court decides [in June Medical Services v. Gee] whether a Louisiana abortion law will go into effect,” and that “[h]ow the justices handle this case will give a clue as to whether Roe v Wade, the ruling in 1973 that recognised abortion rights, has continued vitality.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Anthony Francois weighs in on Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices will reconsider precedent that requires courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, arguing that “under Auer deference [our] tripartite and limited constitutional republic collapses into a company town, with no accountable lawmaker and no independent judges.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com