On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected a request by Hawaii to block the federal government from enforcing the president’s entry ban against additional relatives, such as grandparents, who the challengers believe should be allowed entry into the U.S. under the Supreme Court’s recent order in the entry-ban cases. Amy […]
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected a request by Hawaii to block the federal government from enforcing the president’s entry ban against additional relatives, such as grandparents, who the challengers believe should be allowed entry into the U.S. under the Supreme Court’s recent order in the entry-ban cases. Amy Howe covers this development for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Dan Levine at Reuters, and Alicia Cohn at The Hill. In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps argues that “the ‘travel ban’ case is the strongest candidate for Establishment Clause standing I have seen in my long lifetime,” because Trump v. Hawaii “has been brought by the precise entity the clause was ‘originally understood’ to protect against federal overreach: a state government.”
Constitution Daily offers a video of its annual Supreme Court end-of-term review. Another review hosted by the University of California, Irvine School of Law will be live-streamed today from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT.
- The season finale of First Mondays (podcast) features “the queen of SCOTUS radio herself: Nina Totenberg.”
- At the ImmigrationProf Blog, Kevin Johnson looks ahead to “three immigration cases on the docket for the 2017 Term”; he predicts that, in part because “the Trump administration in the travel ban and other executive orders seems more than willing to push the constitutional envelope when it comes to immigration,” “we [will] continue [to] see a fair number of immigration cases before the Court.”
- In an op-ed in The New York Times, Carl Reiner, speaking as “a nonagenarian who has just completed the most prolific, productive five years of my life,” pleads with Justice Anthony Kennedy “not to put your feet up on the ottoman just yet,” because “these are not ordinary times, and you, sir, are anything but an ordinary man.”
- At Jost on Justice, Ken Jost observes that after Justice Neil Gorsuch’s “first three months of a high court career that could last 30 years,” “[a]dvocates on the left and the right appeared to agree on one point: Gorsuch could be on the way to being more conservative than his lionized predecessor, Antonin Scalia.”
- In The Economist, Steven Mazie looks at Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, next term’s case that asks whether private parties can deny services to same-sex couples, particularly in industries involving expression, remarking that “if there is a constitutional right for a Christian proprietor not to bake any kind of cake for two men getting married, it is hard to see why there wouldn’t be a similar right for a photographer or a caterer to turn away, say, interracial couples or Muslims whose beliefs or lifestyles clash with his religious scruples.”
Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.