Friday round-up

Friday round-upYesterday, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, asked the justices to dismiss the case, arguing that a district court decision earlier this week […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Yesterday, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, asked the justices to dismiss the case, arguing that a district court decision earlier this week that barred the government from adding the question has rendered the Supreme Court case moot. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung at Reuters.

This blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, comes from Miriam Siefter. Ilya Somin unpacks the argument at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, concluding that “a wide range of outcomes are still possible, and it is by no means clear which side [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh will ultimately come down on.”

Briefly:

  • At E&E News, Pamela King reports that “[l]egal fights over the expansion of natural gas pipelines across the East Coast are starting to make their way to the Supreme Court”; she highlights “three petitions that have reached the country’s most powerful bench” and notes that “[m]ore are expected.”
  • Tony Mauro reports at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[t]wo decisions on arbitration by the two newest U.S. Supreme Court justices handed down within a week of each other recently have given legal writing expert Ross Guberman a fresh chance to compare the writing skills of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. His verdict: ‘a wash.’”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes recent instances in which a liberal Supreme Court justice has been replaced by a much more conservative successor.
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “Jason Snead joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about the snurlough (snow day + furlough), the return of #GorsuchStyle, and creative ideas for funding SCOTUS during the government shutdown.”

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

Friday round-up

Friday round-upYesterday, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, asked the justices to dismiss the case, arguing that a district court decision earlier this week […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Yesterday, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, asked the justices to dismiss the case, arguing that a district court decision earlier this week that barred the government from adding the question has rendered the Supreme Court case moot. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung at Reuters.

This blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, comes from Miriam Siefter. Ilya Somin unpacks the argument at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, concluding that “a wide range of outcomes are still possible, and it is by no means clear which side [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh will ultimately come down on.”

Briefly:

  • At E&E News, Pamela King reports that “[l]egal fights over the expansion of natural gas pipelines across the East Coast are starting to make their way to the Supreme Court”; she highlights “three petitions that have reached the country’s most powerful bench” and notes that “[m]ore are expected.”
  • Tony Mauro reports at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[t]wo decisions on arbitration by the two newest U.S. Supreme Court justices handed down within a week of each other recently have given legal writing expert Ross Guberman a fresh chance to compare the writing skills of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. His verdict: ‘a wash.’”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes recent instances in which a liberal Supreme Court justice has been replaced by a much more conservative successor.
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “Jason Snead joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about the snurlough (snow day + furlough), the return of #GorsuchStyle, and creative ideas for funding SCOTUS during the government shutdown.”

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-upFor this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court justices indicated … that they thought […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

For this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court justices indicated … that they thought Tennessee’s tough residency requirements for those who want to run liquor stores have more to do with protecting in-state economic interests than guarding against the evils of alcohol[, [b]ut they also wondered how far they could go, since the Constitution gives states an especially pivotal role in regulating booze.” Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today. Commentary comes in video from ABC News Live’s The Briefing Room.

For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report on yesterday’s reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, noting that the case “is part of a drive by conservative activists to pare back the power state and local governments exercise over land use, which they believe can so impair private property as to be the legal equivalent of a ‘taking’ that triggers the constitutional right to ‘just compensation.’” At The WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp writes that the argument “made clear that state and local governments are playing Whack-a-Mole with private property rights.”

Ronald Mann has this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, which involves the ability of a third-party class-action defendant to remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. At Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog, Archis Parasharami and others write that “based on [the] oral argument, the Court may be closely divided on the questions presented in the case.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.]

This blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s oral argument in Azar v. Allina Health Services, which asks whether the Department of Health and Human Services was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before altering its Medicare hospital-reimbursement formula, comes from Abbe Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell. At Law360 (subscription required), Jeff Overley reports that the justices “appeared skeptical of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ refusal to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when outlining a Medicare reimbursement policy that affects billions of dollars in hospital payments.”

Subscript Law provides a graphic explainer for Tuesday’s decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, in which the court held that an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for transportation workers involved in interstate commerce applies to independent contractors.  At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel remarks that “[s]ome pundits were surprised that the Court would issue a ‘pro-worker,’ ‘anti-arbitration’ decision, failing to understand that the Justices all do their best to be faithful to the words Congress puts into its statutes.” Alexander Chemers and Robert Roginson discuss the opinion at Ogletree Deakins.

Rory Little analyzes Tuesday’s opinion in Stokeling v. United States, in which the justices ruled that a state-law robbery conviction can qualify as a “violent felony” for the purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act even when the conviction does not require the use of violent force, for this blog. At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Jonathan Adler observes that the first divided opinion of the term “was a 5-4 decision, but not along the lines many would expect.”

At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that “[a] New York district court ruling barring the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census complicates the U.S. Supreme Court’s next steps in a case that already faces a tight deadline.” Another look at the possible effect of the ruling on the pending Supreme Court case, Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, comes from Alison Frankel at Reuters.

In an op-ed at Townhall, Stephanie Taub weighs in on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, maintaining that “[t]he fact that a nearly 100-year old war memorial dedicated to 49 brave men who died for this country is in jeopardy demonstrates precisely why we need the Court’s help now, more than ever, to return reason and sanity to the Constitution’s religion clauses.” Additional commentary comes from Kelly Shackelford in an op-ed at The Daily Caller. [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:

  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro interviews Nancy Maveety, the author of “Glass and Gavel: The U.S. Supreme Court and Alcohol,” which Maveety describes as “the story of alcohol in American life and law, a cocktail-by-cocktail history of the eras of the Supreme Court, and its alcohol-related decisions.”
  • At Politico Magazine, Daniel Hemel notes that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent health issues have reopened discussions about the drawbacks of life tenure for Supreme Court justices; he concludes that “[f]ixed terms, age caps, and forced retirement are all strong medicine for the problem of judicial disability,” and that “[i]n light of the flaws inherent in each, the better course of treatment is none at all.”

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-upThis morning the Supreme Court wraps up its January session with oral arguments in two cases. First on the agenda is a reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution. […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court wraps up its January session with oral arguments in two cases. First on the agenda is a reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution. Miriam Siefert had this blog’s preview. Isaac Syed and Yuexin Angela Zhu preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case today is Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Cornell’s preview comes from Matt Farnum and Brady Plastaras.

Yesterday the justices issued two opinions. In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, the court held 8-0 that an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for transportation workers involved in interstate commerce applies to independent contractors. Ronald Mann analyzes the opinion for this blog. At The Employment Law Group, R. Scott Oswald writes that “[t]he court’s recent FAA jurisprudence may have revived the Gilded Age fiction that employment agreements are voluntary contracts — when, in truth, most workers have no option but to accept their terms — but Oliveira at least proves that the justices’ historical predilections may cut both ways[:] Here, a worker-friendly outcome was reached by entering the minds of 1920s legislators.” Another look at the opinion comes from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate.

In Stokeling v. United States, the justices ruled 5-4 yesterday that a state-law robbery conviction can qualify as a “violent felony” for the purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act even when the conviction does not require the use of violent force. At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger writes that with this ruling, the Supreme Court “took a step back from the brink of irrationality in sentencing.”

This blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, in which the court will decide whether an implied discretionary function exception bars a negligence claim against the TVA, comes from Gregory Sisk. Ronald Mann has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. , in which the justices considered whether the term “full costs” awarded to a prevailing party in a copyright case is limited to taxable costs or also authorizes nontaxable costs.

Briefly:

  • At the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen looks at how yesterday’s district-court decision blocking the federal government from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census may affect the census-related case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court next month.
  • For Capitol Media Services (via the Arizona Capitol Times), Howard Fischer reports that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to reinstate a 2002 voter-approved amendment to the Arizona Constitution which denied bail to anyone accused of rape.”
  • At the Goldwater Institute’s In Defense of Liberty blog, Adi Dynar urges the justices to review a challenge to rules governing adoptions under the Indian Child Welfare Act that a lower court dismissed “on the grounds that because our clients’ adoption cases had all reached their conclusions, the case was legally ‘moot.’”
  • At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser suggests that “an easy-to-miss order on Monday holding in favor of Larry Lamont White, a Kentucky man sentenced to death for a 1983 murder,” over a dissent by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, “fits into an emerging pattern within the Supreme Court” of some degree of division “between the more nihilistic Republicans and their two more measured colleagues.”
  • At The Interdependent Third Branch, Lawrence Friedman looks at two recent examples of how Chief Justice John Roberts, “speak[ing] with the authority of his office outside the confines of the Court’s written opinions,” maximizes his “opportunities … to ensure all of us that, regardless of how they rule in particular cases, the federal courts are just going about their business.”

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-upThis morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, which involves the ability of a third-party class-action defendant to remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Basem Besada and Isaac Idicula have a preview […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, which involves the ability of a third-party class-action defendant to remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Basem Besada and Isaac Idicula have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, and Subscript Law provides a graphic explainer. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.] This morning’s second argument is in Azar v. Allina Health Services, which asks whether the Department of Health and Human Services was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before altering its Medicare hospital-reimbursement formula. This blog’s preview came from Abbe Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell. Lauren Devendorf and Tyler Schmitt preview the case for Cornell. Another look comes from Karen Lovitch at The National Law Review.

The court issued additional orders yesterday morning from its conference last Friday. The justices did not add any merits cases to their docket, nor did they act on several high-profile petitions; they asked the federal government for its views in three cases, two of which raise the same issue. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the court also “rejected an unusual challenge to Matthew Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general.” Additional coverage of yesterday’s orders comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in Michaels v. Whitaker.]

In an op-ed for Forbes, Nick Sibilla writes that in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing that will be argued tomorrow, the court “may soon decide whether states can pass laws that do little more than protect in-state businesses from outside competitors in the alcohol industry.” At the Alcohol Law Review, Paul Pisano urges the court to “avoid repeating the mistakes of 1919 and honor the state roles in regulating alcohol by giving the broadest reading to the 21st Amendment.”

Briefly:

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-upThis morning the justices begin the second week of the January sitting with two oral arguments. First up is Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, in which the court will decide whether an implied discretionary function exception bars a negligence claim against the TVA. Gregory Sisk previewed the case for this blog. Ushin Hong and Russell […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

This morning the justices begin the second week of the January sitting with two oral arguments. First up is Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, in which the court will decide whether an implied discretionary function exception bars a negligence claim against the TVA. Gregory Sisk previewed the case for this blog. Ushin Hong and Russell Mendelson have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. This morning’s second argument is in Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., which asks whether the term “full costs” awarded to a prevailing party in a copyright case is limited to taxable costs or also authorizes nontaxable costs. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview. Isaac Syed and Yuexin Angela Zhu preview the case for Cornell.

On Friday the justices added eight cases to their merits docket for this term, but they took no action on high-profile petitions in cases involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act, service in the military by transgender people, abortion rights, employment discrimination, and the Second Amendment. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that the granted cases include “ones on how gun laws apply to undocumented immigrants and whether the police may have blood drawn from unconscious motorists suspected of drunken driving.”

For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss another week of Supreme Court proceedings but her recovery from cancer treatment is on track and there is no sign of any remaining disease, the court said Friday.” Lawrence Hurley reports for Reuters that Ginsburg “will continue to work from home and participate in all the cases she has missed.” Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg and Domenico Montenaro at NPR and from Adam Shaw and Bill Mears at Fox News. Also for Fox News, Bill Mears reports that Ginsburg’s absence “has touched off a burst of speculation as well as low-key planning from the White House about the possibility of a departure,” but that “observers aren’t convinced the liberal backbone of the court is going anywhere.” At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Elisabeth Daigle caution against “read[ing] too much into Ginsburg’s absence.”

Briefly:

  • At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps suggests that Herrera v. Wyoming“an Indian treaty-rights case argued in the Supreme Court last Tuesday, revolves around a basic of federal Indian law: No promise to Indian people actually binds the United States. Congress can unilaterally void any treaty or agreement.”
  • The latest episode of First Mondays “break[s] down the first week of the January sitting,” catching listeners “up on everything the Court has been up to—including Justice Kavanaugh’s very first majority opinion—before recapping oral arguments in Herrera v. WyomingObduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, and Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt.”
  • At Justia’s Verdict blog, John Cannan explains why, although “[l]egislative history is often not a foolproof method of divining legislative intent, … it provides significant clarity” in the case of Azar v. Allina Health Services, which asks whether the Department of Health and Human Services was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before altering its Medicare reimbursement formula.
  • In a YouTube video, Philip DeFranco takes a high-octane look at the issues in Carpenter v. Murphy, a capital case in which the justices will decide whether Congress has disestablished the boundaries of an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, affecting the state’s ability to prosecute major crimes in the affected area.
  • At Rewire.News, Heron Greenesmith writes that “two self-proclaimed feminist organizations” “have filed amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of cisgender students challenging the trans-inclusive school policies of a school district in Boyertown, Pennsylvania.”

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-upBriefly: Joan Biskupic reports at CNN that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cancer surgery and ongoing recuperation have cast an atmosphere of uncertainty over the Supreme Court at a critical time for its future and as the legal fate of several controversial White House policies hang in the balance.” At the Goldwater Institute’s In Defense of Liberty […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • Joan Biskupic reports at CNN that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cancer surgery and ongoing recuperation have cast an atmosphere of uncertainty over the Supreme Court at a critical time for its future and as the legal fate of several controversial White House policies hang in the balance.”
  • At the Goldwater Institute’s In Defense of Liberty blog, Jacob Huebert urges the justices to hear a challenge to an Illinois campaign-finance law and to “and make clear that governments cannot use contribution limits to tilt the political playing field in anyone’s favor.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “takes [a] cut at measuring cases that generated the most interest so far this term, much like a snapshot of the current Supreme Court landscape.”
  • In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “John-Michael Seibler joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about RBG’s absence and Kavanaugh’s first SCOTUS opinion.”
  • At The National Law Review, Jennifer Theis and Howard Michael look at Iancu v. Brunetti, in which the court will consider a First Amendment challenge to the ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks.

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

Friday round-up

Friday round-upBriefly: Joan Biskupic reports at CNN that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cancer surgery and ongoing recuperation have cast an atmosphere of uncertainty over the Supreme Court at a critical time for its future and as the legal fate of several controversial White House policies hang in the balance.” At the Goldwater Institute’s In Defense of Liberty […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • Joan Biskupic reports at CNN that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cancer surgery and ongoing recuperation have cast an atmosphere of uncertainty over the Supreme Court at a critical time for its future and as the legal fate of several controversial White House policies hang in the balance.”
  • At the Goldwater Institute’s In Defense of Liberty blog, Jacob Huebert urges the justices to hear a challenge to an Illinois campaign-finance law and to “and make clear that governments cannot use contribution limits to tilt the political playing field in anyone’s favor.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “takes [a] cut at measuring cases that generated the most interest so far this term, much like a snapshot of the current Supreme Court landscape.”
  • In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “John-Michael Seibler joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about RBG’s absence and Kavanaugh’s first SCOTUS opinion.”
  • At The National Law Review, Jennifer Theis and Howard Michael look at Iancu v. Brunetti, in which the court will consider a First Amendment challenge to the ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks.

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-upRichard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Richard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that during the argument, “two of the court’s most experienced practitioners recounted the founding of the union and the framing of the Constitution, and both claimed the notion of state sovereignty was on their side.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that “[t]he justices’ questions … reflected broader concerns that could frame the reconsideration of precedents liberals cherish, such as the abortion-rights case Roe v. Wade, should the court’s conservative majority choose to review them.” Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required).

Ronald Mann has this blog’s analysis of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first Supreme Court opinion, in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., in which the court held on Tuesday that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the arbitrator to decide whether a dispute should be decided in arbitration, regardless of the court’s view of the merits of the request for arbitration. Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report for The Wall Street Journal that, “in contrast to his contentious confirmation hearings last fall, Justice Kavanaugh’s debut was the picture of comity, writing for a unanimous court to resolve a procedural issue in arbitration between two businesses.” Robert Shea looks at the decision at Ogletree Deakins.

For this blog, Gregory Ablavsky analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Jessica Litman has this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s second argument, in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, in which the justices considered when registration of a copyright claim has been made under the copyright statute. This blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, about whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures, comes from Danielle D’Onfro.

Briefly:

  • The Alcohol Law Review looks at the briefing in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to the state of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing.
  • For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall cover Tuesday’s unsigned Supreme Court order “reject[ing] an unnamed foreign company’s effort to avoid penalties for defying a grand jury subpoena that appears to be part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian electoral interference.”
  • At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo writes that the justices “on Friday will consider taking the first direct challenge to abortion rights since Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench,” in a challenge to an Indiana law prohibiting pre-viability abortions based on race, sex, or disability and regulating the disposal of fetal remains.

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

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upRichard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Richard Re has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s argument in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the justices considered whether to overrule a precedent that allows a state to be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Mark Walsh provides a first-hand view of the argument for this blog. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that during the argument, “two of the court’s most experienced practitioners recounted the founding of the union and the framing of the Constitution, and both claimed the notion of state sovereignty was on their side.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that “[t]he justices’ questions … reflected broader concerns that could frame the reconsideration of precedents liberals cherish, such as the abortion-rights case Roe v. Wade, should the court’s conservative majority choose to review them.” Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required).

Ronald Mann has this blog’s analysis of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first Supreme Court opinion, in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., in which the court held on Tuesday that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the arbitrator to decide whether a dispute should be decided in arbitration, regardless of the court’s view of the merits of the request for arbitration. Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report for The Wall Street Journal that, “in contrast to his contentious confirmation hearings last fall, Justice Kavanaugh’s debut was the picture of comity, writing for a unanimous court to resolve a procedural issue in arbitration between two businesses.” Robert Shea looks at the decision at Ogletree Deakins.

For this blog, Gregory Ablavsky analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in Herrera v. Wyoming, which asks whether the Crow Tribe retains treaty rights to hunt on land in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Jessica Litman has this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s second argument, in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, in which the justices considered when registration of a copyright claim has been made under the copyright statute. This blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, about whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures, comes from Danielle D’Onfro.

Briefly:

  • The Alcohol Law Review looks at the briefing in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to the state of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing.
  • For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall cover Tuesday’s unsigned Supreme Court order “reject[ing] an unnamed foreign company’s effort to avoid penalties for defying a grand jury subpoena that appears to be part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian electoral interference.”
  • At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo writes that the justices “on Friday will consider taking the first direct challenge to abortion rights since Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench,” in a challenge to an Indiana law prohibiting pre-viability abortions based on race, sex, or disability and regulating the disposal of fetal remains.

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