At CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that “[t]he 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of President Donald Trump’s travel ban Thursday, ruling that extended family members such as grandparents are exempt from the ban, as well as a certain class of refugees, while the legality of the ban is under review.” At […]
At CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that “[t]he 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of President Donald Trump’s travel ban Thursday, ruling that extended family members such as grandparents are exempt from the ban, as well as a certain class of refugees, while the legality of the ban is under review.” At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[t]he Justice Department promptly vowed to take the issue back to the Supreme Court.” Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters. At Take Care, Joshua Matz argues that “[i]t’s hardly obvious that DOJ should rush to the Supreme Court this time around,” and observes that “at every turn, even when doing so requires reading precedent or judicial orders with a miserly eye, this administration seems obsessed with excluding as many people as possible for as long as possible.”
In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “Trump administration lawyers joined sides with a Colorado baker Thursday and urged the Supreme Court to rule that he has the right to refuse to provide a wedding cake to celebrate the marriage of two men.” Additional coverage of the solicitor general’s amicus brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post, Jess Bravin in The Wall Street Journal, Marcia Coyle in The National Law Journal, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, and Ariane de Vogue at CNN. A Heritage Foundation podcast features a discussion with Jack Phillips, the plaintiff in the case, “about the challenges of creating art and doing business in keeping with conscience in the 21st Century.”
- For this blog, Andrew Hamm looks at the real-world consequences of the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the court held that defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the chemists who tested drug samples used as evidence in the defendants’ trials, concluding that “time has borne out some of both Scalia’s and Kennedy’s predictions and revealed that others were unfounded.”
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!