Monday round-up

Monday round-upFor The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro identifies “several factors that could make it difficult for Brett Kavanaugh—if he is confirmed by the Senate—to hit the ground running” when the new Supreme Court term begins on October 1. For USA Today, Richard Wolf explains that that “[b]ecause he would replace retired […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro identifies “several factors that could make it difficult for Brett Kavanaugh—if he is confirmed by the Senate—to hit the ground running” when the new Supreme Court term begins on October 1. For USA Today, Richard Wolf explains that that “[b]ecause he would replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy, who occasionally sided with the court’s liberal wing, Kavanaugh particularly could shift the balance on cases involving abortion, capital punishment, racial discrimination and gay rights.”

In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Becket Adams observes that “Americans increasingly want the Senate to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.” In an op-ed at Fox News, Carrie Severino remarks that Democratic senators up for re-election in red states are “in a tight spot” when deciding how to vote on the Kavanaugh nomination because “[t]heir constituents strongly favor the judge’s confirmation and recognize that critical issues are at stake with the appointment of the next justice to the Supreme Court.”

The editorial board of The Washington Post suggests that “there is no compelling public-interest argument to hold a vote [on Kavanaugh’s nomination] by early October,” noting that even as to documents from Kavanaugh’s tenure in the White House counsel’s office, which “both sides agree that senators should review,” “[t]he National Archives must be the arbiter not only of which documents are sent to the committee but also of the terms on which they are turned over,” which “might mean Republicans have to adjust their confirmation schedule.” At Slate, Peter Shane argues that “the most important issue with regard to [Kavanaugh’s] potential confirmation … may be his views on executive power and accountability,” and that “[i]n considering those views, it’s important to examine and question his full record,” including “documents concerning more than 100 signing statements by George W. Bush during Kavanaugh’s time in the administration … asserting that more than 1,000 different statutory provisions Bush signed into law were potentially intrusive on the president’s constitutional authorities.”

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the lawsuit Jack Phillips, the cake artist at the center of last term’s Masterpiece Cakeshop case, has filed against Colorado state officials who “found probable cause that Mr. Phillips had unlawfully discriminated in another case—by refusing to bake a custom cake (blue on the outside, pink on the inside) to celebrate the transgender transition of Autumn Scardina from a man to a woman”; the board hopes that “if Mr. Phillips ends up back before the Court, … the majority this time lays out clear guidelines protecting his religious and speech rights.” Additional commentary comes from James Gottry in an op-ed at The Hill and from Jay Hobbs at The Federalist.

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upAt CNN, Lauren Fox and others report that “Senate Democrats are threatening to sue for documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record, the latest escalation in a partisan battle over the court.” Burgess Everett reports at Politico that “[t]he potential lawsuit would come right as Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings begin in early September.” Additional coverage […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

At CNN, Lauren Fox and others report that “Senate Democrats are threatening to sue for documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record, the latest escalation in a partisan battle over the court.” Burgess Everett reports at Politico that “[t]he potential lawsuit would come right as Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings begin in early September.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, who calls the threat “one of the few procedural weapons Democrats can use to slow progress on a Supreme Court confirmation some see as inevitable.” At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “[t]he National Archives is distancing itself from President George W. Bush’s legal team as both groups work to hand over hundreds of thousands of documents tied to … Kavanaugh.” In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Matt Mackowiack maintains that “[t]he record will show that Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, is leading the most transparent confirmation process of all time.”

 At the Washington Examiner, Susan Ferrechio reports that “Senate Democrats say they are planning to meet with Brett Kavanaugh, adding to a short list of party lawmakers who have now sat down with President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.” Niels Lesniewsky reports at Roll Call that “Democratic senators have, at least from Republican states, started meeting with … Kavanaugh, but they are mostly avoiding the press when doing so.”

At The Hill, Jessie Hellmann reports that “[t]he possibility of another Trump nominee ascending to the Supreme Court bench has created a sense of urgency among abortion supporters in the states, where activists are pushing to safeguard access to the procedure.” For this blog, Charlotte Garden surveys Kavanaugh’s record in labor and employment cases. At The New Republic, Matt Ford presents “some questions that Democrats could ask Kavanaugh that he might feel compelled to answer, rather than parry,” at his confirmation hearing. At The Federalist, Chad Felix Green pushes back against claims that “Kavanaugh would allow a ‘license to discriminate’ that would affect the everyday lives of LGBT Americans.”

Briefly:

  • For The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie explains that the outcome of Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a challenge to the federal government’s critical-habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog that will be argued on the first day of October Term 2018,“will be important not only for the three-inch-long, warty, speckled frog but for the fate of a long-standing principle of judicial deference to federal agencies.”
  • At The Federalist Society Review, Richard Raile argues that last term’s decision in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford “is not the meaningless punt it is advertised to be,” but instead “articulates principles that undermine partisan-gerrymandering theory at the most fundamental level” and “should be read to definitively end these claims.”
  • For Harvard Magazine, Lincoln Caplan looks at the evolving role of the solicitor general, who “remains, by a wide margin, the most frequent and influential advocate before the Supreme Court.”
  • At the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Political Insider blog, Tamar Hallerman reports that “[t]he latest chapter of Georgia’s long-running water rights battleagainst Florida has cost the state’s taxpayers nearly $50 million — a price tag that will undoubtedly rise after the Supreme Court punted the case earlier this summer,” but that “legal bills for the two states are likely to mount a little slower thanks to a decision quietly made by the justices late last week,” when they replaced the private attorney who had been serving as the special master with a federal judge.
  • In an op-ed at USA Today, Jack Phillips, the cake artist at the center of last term’s Masterpiece Cakeshop case, explains that he is suing the Colorado state officials who are “attempting to punish me for declining to create a different custom cake — one that the customer admits was intended to express a message contrary to my faith.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upFor USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[f]or three eventful years of George W. Bush’s presidency – involving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, battles over abortion and immigration, and two Supreme Court vacancies – Brett Kavanaugh held one of the most important jobs in the White House,” but “as the Senate considers Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, his work as […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[f]or three eventful years of George W. Bush’s presidency – involving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, battles over abortion and immigration, and two Supreme Court vacancies – Brett Kavanaugh held one of the most important jobs in the White House,” but “as the Senate considers Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, his work as staff secretary – described by others who have held the job as the president’s inbox and outbox – remains a black hole.” For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim reports that “[h]ow the Republican majority is handling Kavanaugh’s extensive records has infuriated Democrats,” noting that “what makes the fight for Kavanaugh’s records unusual is that the National Archives, which has played a central role for previous nominees in vetting their White House papers and sending them to the Senate, has effectively been sidelined.” In commentary at National Review, Ed Whelan explains why, “[o]n any sensible application of the cost-benefit analysis that always properly shapes the Senate’s demand for documents, demanding the staff secretary documents would be insane.” Thomas Jipping maintains in an op-ed at the Washington Examiner that “senators already have what [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer said they need, a complete record of the most relevant and revelatory material from Kavanaugh’s legal career.”

In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “[f]ormer law clerk Justin Walker joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about working for Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Kennedy, running the BK5K, and the single best Kavanaugh opinion.” At E&E News, Amanda Reilly takes a close look at a case that “provides a glimpse into [Supreme Court] nominee [Brett Kavanaugh]’s broader approach to environmental law and how that may translate on the Supreme Court bench,” noting that “[i]f … Kavanaugh had his way, EPA would be without an important tool for regulating air pollution that drifts across state lines.” Dr. Roger Klein maintains in an op-ed for The Hill that “Kavanaugh’s expertise in administrative and regulatory law makes him exactly the right appointment at the right time.”

For The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “Kavanaugh met on Wednesday with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), two senators at the center of the multi-million dollar Supreme Court fight,” who “gave no indication after the meetings of whether they will support President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.” At NPR, Sarah McCammon reports that the re-election campaigns of red-state Democratic senators “are being complicated by the Supreme Court fight, which has brought millions of dollars in ads and activists to their home states, as well as those of other moderate senators trying to save their jobs in November.” According to Dan Merica at CNN, “Democratic senators facing tough races in Republican-leaning states are the target of a new ad from a Democratic group that pressures them to vote down President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse considers the rash of televised ads promoting or opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation, writing that “assuming that there’s still a line somewhere, I believe the National Rifle Association has crossed it with a commercial declaring that ‘President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie’ between the ‘liberal justices’ who ‘oppose your right to self-defense’ and the ‘four justices’ (who are seemingly without left-to-right ideology) who ‘support your right to self-defense.’”

For The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission”; “Phillips and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom … say the Commission has revived its campaign against him …, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.” Additional coverage comes from Amy Wang for The Washington Post, who reports that “[t]his time, the cake at the center of the controversy was not for a wedding” – it was “a custom cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside” to celebrate the anniversary of the day the customer “had come out as transgender.” In an op-ed at The Daily Signal, Jim Campbell of ADF urges the federal courts to “put a stop to Colorado’s unconstitutional bullying.”

Briefly:

  • At the Los Angeles Review of Books, Bob Egelko reviews Richard Hasen’s book, “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upAt CNN, Lauren Fox reports that “[t]wo red state Democrats are scheduled to meet [today] with President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, highly anticipated meetings that could set the tone for where some of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats land on appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.” According to Seung Min Kim for The Washington Post, […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

At CNN, Lauren Fox reports that “[t]wo red state Democrats are scheduled to meet [today] with President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, highly anticipated meetings that could set the tone for where some of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats land on appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.” According to Seung Min Kim for The Washington Post, “the White House is warning that time is running short for Democratic leaders to schedule sit-downs with the judge before his confirmation hearings next month.” Jordain Carney reports at The Hill that “[l]iberal activists are pressing Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other prominent members of the caucus to publicly and privately pressure the red-state Democrats to oppose Kavanaugh.” At Fox News, Chad Pergram reports that “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is getting help from an old Senate hand as he seeks to navigate the chamber ahead of his confirmation hearing — tapping into a long tradition of nominees using ‘sherpas’ to find their way.”

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak and others explore “some of the possible scenarios” in which a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court might “sustain sharp restrictions on access to abortion in the United States.” Lorraine Wollaert reports at Politico that “[a]bortion rights and civil liberties have so far dominated the fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but his confirmation would mean a victory for another constituency: business.” For this blog, Aaron Nielson looks at Kavanaugh’s record in cases involving threshold questions about whether a federal court has the authority to resolve a dispute at all. For The New York Times, Erica Green reports that “[o]ver his decades-long legal career, Judge Kavanaugh has argued in favor of breaking down barriers between church and state,” and that his nomination is “breathing new life into the debate over public funding for sectarian education.”

For The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, Salvador Rizzo “round[s] up some key claims from Democrats and Republicans about Kavanaugh’s time as a White House adviser.” At Rewire.News, Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo collect the latest news and commentary about the Kavanaugh nomination. The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal maintains that “Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is fast becoming one of the most transparent in history.” At The Atlantic, Benjamin Wittes laments that “Kavanaugh is preponderantly likely to be confirmed by the Senate, yet for all the wrong reasons”: “not because of any of his virtues, though he has many virtues,” but “because Republicans right now have the raw political power to confirm him on their own.”

Briefly:

  • At The Hill, Aris Folley reports that “[a] company that created a successful Kickstarter campaign to make a Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg action figure says it is planning to ship the products in October.”
  • Jordan Rubin reports at Bloomberg Law that “[t]wo execution disputes the U.S. Supreme Court will hear next term with swing vote Anthony Kennedy off the bench could foreshadow its treatment of certain death penalty cases going forward.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upCourt-watchers maintain their focus on records from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time working in the George W. Bush White House. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that documents from Kavanaugh’s two-year tenure in the White House counsel’s office reveal Kavanaugh’s “involvement in efforts by the Bush administration to get his nominees on to federal […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Court-watchers maintain their focus on records from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time working in the George W. Bush White House. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that documents from Kavanaugh’s two-year tenure in the White House counsel’s office reveal Kavanaugh’s “involvement in efforts by the Bush administration to get his nominees on to federal courts – efforts that Democrats successfully blocked in many cases during Bush’s first two years in office.” For The Washington Post, Stephanie McCrummen writes that the most recent batch of documents, released on Sunday, contains “no obvious bombshells about Kavanaugh.” Tony Mauro reports for The National Law Journal that the documents show “a heightened-alert atmosphere inside and outside the White House surrounding the speculation that Supreme Court vacancies would soon open up.” For The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “[t]he National Archives is doubling down on its refusal to respond to Democratic requests for documents from” Kavanaugh’s three-year stint as White House staff secretary, informing Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, that “it is the agency’s policy to only respond to requests from a committee chair, all of whom are Republicans.”

At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger offers a chart comparing “the number of days from nomination to the commencement of hearings for the last four Justices nominated by Democratic Party Presidents and the scheduled date for Judge Kavanaugh.” The editors of the Weekly Standard write that “all the Democrats can do is delay—and they plan to.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Penny Nance looks at three cases that “shed light on [Kavanaugh’s] clear understanding of the First Amendment, and his rulings to block the government from infringing on these rights.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upOn Friday afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that the committee’s hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy will begin on September 4 and last three to four days. Coverage comes from Elana Schor at Politico, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Seung Min Kim for The Washington […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

On Friday afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that the committee’s hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy will begin on September 4 and last three to four days. Coverage comes from Elana Schor at Politico, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Seung Min Kim for The Washington Post, Lisa Mascaro and Mark Sherman for the Associated Press, Todd Ruger at Roll Call, and Manu Raju at CNN. At Vox, Li Zhou reports that “Grassley’s announcement has already prompted outcry from Democrats who argue that he’s expedited the process and set up a hearing before lawmakers have had time to properly review Kavanaugh’s lengthy paper trail.”

For The Washington Times, Steven Dinan reports that “[s]enators on Sunday released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush White House, sending researchers scurrying as Washington prepares for his confirmation fight.” Lisa Mascaro and Mark Sherman report for the Associated Press that “[n]ewly released documents from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time on the Kenneth Starr team investigating Bill Clinton, [made public on Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request] reveal his resistance to issuing an indictment of a sitting president.” Additional coverage comes from Michael Shear for The New York Times. In an op-ed for The Hill, Thomas Jipping maintains that Kavanaugh’s judicial record, not records relating to his work for Starr or in the White House, is “most relevant to this nomination.”

For The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos and Catie Edmondson report that although “[t]he confirmation fight over Judge Kavanaugh was once billed as the mother of all Supreme Court battles, a fight to the death with the court’s ideological balance on the line,” “energizing and sustaining on-the-ground opposition to a nominee whom most Republicans and some moderate Democrats have deemed well qualified has been difficult, especially when liberal energy is intensely focused on midterm elections less than 90 days away.” For The Washington Post, Sean Sullivan writes that “Democrats have all but acknowledged that they are unable to stop the Senate from confirming … Kavanaugh … this fall.” At New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer blog, Benjamin Hart notes that “Democrats are running out of time to define the candidate on their own terms and make his confirmation anything more than an inevitability.”

For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Steven Mufson report that “[h]ot-button social issues such as abortion and race have so far dominated the debate about Kavanaugh’s nomination, but there is no more important issue to the Trump administration than bringing to heel the federal agencies and regulatory entities that, in Kavanaugh’s words, form ‘a headless fourth branch of the U.S. Government.’” For The Wall Street Journal, Alexa Corse covers Kavanaugh’s record in another arena, reporting that “[i]n federal court, Brett Kavanaugh may have a reputation for knowledge and expertise, but on the basketball court—well, he tries.”

Briefly:

  • For CNN, Joan Biskupic marks last Friday’s “25th anniversary of [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s] judicial oath on the US Supreme Court” by looking back at the justice’s life and career, calling “the lesson of Ginsburg’s eight decades — marked by early loss and professional rejection — that life’s vicissitudes can open unexpected doors and bring new opportunities.”
  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[f]or the second time this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has abruptly discharged a lawyer in private practice who has been serving as a special master, and appointed a senior federal judge to step in and preside over a water dispute between states.”
  • In the latest episode of First Mondays (podcast), Dan Epps and Ian Samuel talk to Rick Hasen about his book, “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.”
  • For NBC News, Phil Helsel reports that “[a]fter the Supreme Court in May overturned a 1992 lawprohibiting states from legalizing sports gambling, several states have already legalized it, and others are considering it.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upRobert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “[a] Senate committee released a sliver of the voluminous White House record of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh on Thursday, amid a rancorous partisan debate over how the documents are being released to the public.” For The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Michael Shear report […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “[a] Senate committee released a sliver of the voluminous White House record of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh on Thursday, amid a rancorous partisan debate over how the documents are being released to the public.” For The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Michael Shear report that an email included among the documents shows that “Kavanaugh volunteered to prepare a senior Bush administration official to testify about the government’s monitoring of conversations between certain terrorism suspects and their lawyers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” According to Eliana Johnson at Politico, the email “is likely to reignite a debate over [Kavanaugh’s] involvement in making the legal case for the Bush administration’s treatment of terrorist suspects — and whether he misled Congress about it.”

For The Washington Post, Amy Brittain reports that financial disclosure forms and net-value statements filed by Kavanaugh “offer a glimpse into personal finances that have appeared shaky at times.” At the Associated Press, Sudhin Thanawala reports that “Kavanaugh’s approach to what conservatives call the ‘administrative state’ … [is] an area where, if he’s confirmed, his presence on the court could mark a significant shift,” noting that “[i]f Kavanaugh aligns with other conservative justices in cases dealing with regulatory agencies, their opinions could ultimately affect a wide swath of American life.” Jimmy Hoover reports at Law360 (subscription required) that “[b]etween 2013 and 2015, … Kavanaugh appears to have shifted his views on a president’s discretion to enforce certain laws, a change of heart that one prominent immigration attorney linked to former President Barack Obama’s executive actions but that Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters maintained has nothing to do with partisanship.”

At ACS Blog, Peter Brann urges the Senate, “[i]n evaluating Judge Kavanaugh, … [not to] be satisfied with empty platitudes about respect for precedent.” At Politico Magazine, Aziz Huq cautions senators “of both sides” against focusing on whether Kavanaugh is an “originalist,” suggesting that instead they ask questions designed to determine whether Kavanaugh would be a justice “who respect the facts,” would “be constrained by rules, whether they are formal laws or deeply entrenched practices of the judiciary,” and would “be committed to enabling everyone to enforce the Constitution.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Samuel Moyn argues that “[i]nstead of digging in over the Kavanaugh nomination, the proper course for liberals is to abandon rule through judges and to underscore the undemocratic nature of a process that allows a minority to choose a president.” At his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf asserts that “Democrats who vote to confirm Kavanaugh in the hope of thereby restoring a reciprocal norm of bipartisan deference to the president are suckers.”

For The Washington Post, Deanna Paul and Mark Berman report that “Tennessee executed Billy Ray Irick on Thursday night, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a final request to stay his execution,” and that Irick “is the first state inmate to be put to death since 2009” and “the first to receive Tennessee’s new and controversial three-drug cocktail,” which contains the sedative midazolam. Additional coverage comes from Jon Herskovitz at Reuters, who reports that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “[c]asting the lone dissenting vote in the Supreme Court’s decision denying Irick a reprieve,” “said that if midazolam does not work, an inmate could suffer harm in violation of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments.”

Briefly:

  • At her eponymous blog, Amy Howe discusses a case on the justices’ cert docket that asks whether Planned Parenthood can bring a suit “to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows Medicaid recipients to receive medical care from any provider who is willing and qualified to provide such services,” after Kansas terminated the state’s agreement with Planned Parenthood affiliates to provide healthcare services to low-income residents.
  • At ESPN, Chris Low reports that “[f]ormer Florida State Hall of Fame football coach Bobby Bowden reaffirmed his belief that the courts have gone too far in pushing prayer out of public schools and stands solidly behind former high school coach Joe Kennedy, who didn’t have his contract renewed after kneeling in prayer on the field following football games” and who has asked the Supreme Court to review his challenge to that termination.
  • At NYR Daily, Cristian Farias looks at Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s Supreme Court record, noting that “[a]s the Justice Department has shifted priorities under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has embraced Trump’s hardline approach to immigration, religion, and criminal punishment, to name only a few areas of policy, the solicitor general has done his part to defend those priorities, working quietly behind the scenes to advance the administration’s conception of the law” and that “for someone who was last in the pecking order, Francisco’s wins have been remarkable.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upSenate Democrats yesterday opened a new front in their effort to obtain records from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure as staff secretary to President George W. Bush. At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee “filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on Wednesday to try to force the Trump […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Senate Democrats yesterday opened a new front in their effort to obtain records from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure as staff secretary to President George W. Bush. At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee “filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on Wednesday to try to force the Trump administration to hand over documents from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time working in the White House.” Additional coverage comes from Igor Bobic at Huffpost, who reports that “Democrats are particularly interested in whether [Kavanaugh] authored or edited any documents relating to the Bush administration’s controversial enhanced interrogation and warrantless wiretapping programs.” At The Hill, John Bowden reports that “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that she is ‘alarmed’ that Democrats have been denied requested documents from the National Archives on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.”

At Medium, Fatima Foss Graves argues that “a review of all the documents that make up … Kavanaugh’s record is essential to assess whether he is fit to sit on the Supreme Court.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Jenny Beth Martin suggests that “Senate Democrats, playing politics with the Supreme Court nomination, may be setting a precedent they will one day regret if and when they get back into the Senate majority.”

At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that Kavanaugh’s “deep[] suspicion[n] of any attempt to limit the president’s power over executive branch officials” “could have important consequences for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election.” For this blog, Sarah Harrington looks at Kavanaugh’s two opinions in a high-profile case involving independent agencies and presidential power. At Legal Planet, Julia Stein examines Kavanaugh’s record in environmental law cases, concluding that “a Justice Kavanaugh would likely present a hurdle to future agency attempts to regulate climate change within the existing statutory framework.”

At Slate, Eric Segall observes that although Kavanaugh’s nomination “triggered immediate fear among most liberals and progressives,” “[t]here’s a reason … for conservatives to also have anxiety about the … nomination: The rare times in our history that the court has gone as far outside the ideological mainstream as Kavanaugh may well take the court have resulted in major public backlash and even constitutional crisis.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Steven Calabresi argues that Kavanaugh’s endorsement of originalism does not necessarily threaten Supreme Court precedents protecting abortion rights and same-sex marriage. The editorial board of The Washington Post urges the Senate “to use the nominee’s confirmation hearings to find out where [Kavanaugh] stands on open carry, as well as on other laws aimed at curtailing gun violence.”

Briefly:

  • Tony Mauro reports at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[b]y an accident of timing, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy has apparently given his U.S. Supreme Court colleagues a gift that will keep on giving for the upcoming term: what is likely to be a record number of law clerks.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes the recent “pro-business trajectory” of the Supreme Court.

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upThe nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is keeping senators occupied even during their truncated August recess. At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is doubling down on her demand for the National Archives to hand over documents tied to … Kavanaugh’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House.” […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is keeping senators occupied even during their truncated August recess. At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is doubling down on her demand for the National Archives to hand over documents tied to … Kavanaugh’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House.” In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley maintains that the documents from Kavanaugh’s tenure as White House staff secretary, requested by Senate Democrats, “are both the least relevant documents to the nomination and the most sensitive to the executive branch, two considerations that have guided previous review processes.”

Maryalice Parks reports for ABC News that “[a]mong professional strategists and volunteer activists, especially those to the left in the Democratic Party, there is a growing frustration that Democratic Senate leaders are not thinking outside the box and doing enough to keep [Kavanaugh] from being confirmed.” At The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), seen as potential swing votes on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, are facing intense pressure from activists during their August recess.” For The Washington Times, David Sherfinski reports that “[t]he National Rifle Association’s legislative-lobbying arm announced Tuesday a seven-figure national and region ad campaign to support [Kavanaugh’s] confirmation.”

At NPR, Nina Totenberg examines Kavanaugh’s views about “the ‘Unitary Executive,’” a phrase that “boils down to the idea that the president should be able to, for any reason, fire the heads of various departments that have executive powers.” For The Washington Post, Ann Marimow reports that “even as Kavanaugh has taken steps to open up an elite, historically white and male network, civil rights advocates cite legal opinions, interviews and writings that suggest he would weaken broad legal protections for minorities,” and that “[i]nterest groups on both sides say Kavanaugh could be the vote conservatives have been looking for to speed up the demise of affirmative action in college admissions.” For this blog, Timothy Zick looks at Kavanaugh’s record in cases involving freedom of expression.

At CNN, Manu Raju reports that “Kavanaugh in 2013 asserted that it’s a ‘traditional exercise’ of presidential power to ignore laws the White House views as unconstitutional, as he defended the controversial practice of signing statements prevalent in George W. Bush’s White House.” At Politico, Elana Schor reports that “Senate Democrats are gearing up to press Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on his decades-long relationship with former Judge Alex Kozinski, who was forced into retirement last year by a mounting sexual harassment scandal.”

For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that Kavanaugh made an exception yesterday to the rule that “Supreme Court nominees are supposed to be seen, not heard, at least until their confirmation hearings,” when he swore in a former law clerk, Britt Grant, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Additional coverage comes from C. Ryan Barber at the Daily Report.

At the Brennan Center for Justice, Andrew Cohen argues that “three developments last week each in their own way suggest a level of concern, and defensiveness, on the part of Republican leaders that belies the strength of their political position” in the Kavanaugh confirmation process. At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick questions the relevance of testimonials about Kavanaugh’s “niceness,” suggesting that “we should be able to agree that if [Chief Judge Merrick] Garland’s kindness to small animals and assorted D.C. charities was immaterial in 2016, Kavanaugh’s warmth of character should not be an issue in 2018.” At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf explains why he decided not to sign a letter in which 72 of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s former law clerks urged senators to confirm Kavanaugh. In an op-ed for Fox News, Gregory Angelo points to “a number of reasons LGBT Americans should take heart in Kavanaugh’s nomination and his likely confirmation as the next associate justice of nation’s highest court.”

Briefly:

  • Subscript Law offers an infographic that contains “a complete snapshot of the Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 term,” with links to graphic explainers for each case.
  • At The Regulatory Review, Jonathan Adler observes that “Chevron deference was raised in defense of agency interpretations of statutory language in five cases this past term, and in all five cases a majority of the Court rejected the agency’s plea,” “suggest[ing] that most of the justices, most of the time, are not particularly interested in how agencies interpret federal statutes.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upFor the Associated Press, Lisa Mascaro reports that “[l]ate last week, Democrats lost ground in their fight to unearth some 1 million documents related to [Supreme Court nominee Brett] Kavanaugh’s time as staff secretary at the Bush White House, a three-year stint on his resume that Republicans say is irrelevant to his qualifications for the […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

For the Associated Press, Lisa Mascaro reports that “[l]ate last week, Democrats lost ground in their fight to unearth some 1 million documents related to [Supreme Court nominee Brett] Kavanaugh’s time as staff secretary at the Bush White House, a three-year stint on his resume that Republicans say is irrelevant to his qualifications for the court.” Additional coverage comes from Jimmy Hoover and Michael Macagnone at Law360 (subscription required), who report that the Democrats’ chances of accessing the documents “plummeted after the National Archives confirmed that such requests could only come from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.”

At First Mondays (podcast), Dan Epps and Ian Samuel “round up the latest Kavanaugh news, including speculation on the Bush documents and a debate over whether Democrats should support his confirmation when they disapprove on the merits.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Ken Blackwell maintains that Kavanaugh’s nomination is “great news for Americans concerned about protecting religious freedom and making sure administrative agencies stay within the realm of their legal authority.” In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Gelzer cautions those worried about Kavanaugh’s views on the “administrative state” against confusing “the demise of a doctrine of statutory interpretation with the demise of the regulatory and administrative agencies themselves.”

Briefly:

  • For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that in a talk last week at Duke Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “[t]he term that ended in June had been … ‘much more divisive than is usual’” and that “the court had fallen woefully short in its quest for consensus.”
  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro chronicles some of the spelling, grammatical and other corrections the Supreme Court has posted this term on the website where its slip opinions are published, “examples of the court’s small step toward transparency when it comes to revising opinions after they are handed down—a practice that until 2015 was shrouded in secrecy.”
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the court yesterday sent a case back to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to determine whether a military statute of limitations barred a 2014 prosecution for a rape that occurred in 2005.
  • For The Progressive, Bill Blum takes note of the ways in which the Roberts court “has been hard on labor unions and the rights of working people,” culminating in last term’s decisions in Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the court held that employers can require employees to resolve wage and hour claims through individual arbitration rather than class or collective actions, and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which struck down a state law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities.
  • At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe looks at two pending cert petitions challenging Colorado’s solitary-confinement practices under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
  • At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Stephen Bainbridge looks at Lorenzo v. SEC, a securities-fraud case that asks whether “merely disseminating fraudulent statements (without making them) gives rise to liability under Rule 10b-5(a) or 10b-5(c).”
  • At Ars Technica, John Brodkin writes that “[t]he Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to vacate the 2016 court ruling that upheld the Obama-era net neutrality rules in a strategy that could help uphold the Federal Communications Commission’s recent repeal of those rules.”

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 http://www.scotusblog.com