Yesterday, Hawaii filed its response to the government’s request that the Supreme Court clarify its June 26 order partially reinstating the administration’s executive order on immigration, and the government filed a reply. Amy Howe covers these developments for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, […]
Yesterday, Hawaii filed its response to the government’s request that the Supreme Court clarify its June 26 order partially reinstating the administration’s executive order on immigration, and the government filed a reply. Amy Howe covers these developments for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that the state argued “that the current phase of that dispute should play out first in a lower appeals court.” Subscript provides a graphic explainer of the travel-ban cases. At Just Security, Marty Lederman disputes the government’s contention in its reply brief that the connection between a foreign national and a United States person or entity “must be ‘substantial,’” calling “[t]hat adjective … a limitation of the SG’s own creation, one not found in the Court’s opinion.”
- At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that government lawyers argued in a sentencing memorandum yesterday that “[f]ive protesters who disrupted a U.S. Supreme Court session with shouts and songs in 2015 should be sentenced to prison time and barred from the grounds of the court for a year” and that the “justices ‘should not be subjected to drama-filled and politically charged speeches and theatrics in the courtroom.’”
- At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes the recent cert-grant track records of “several Supreme Court repeat players” who in previous years “were much more successful than others in getting the Supreme Court to hear their cases.”
- At the Center for Competitive Politics, Luke Wachob “discusses three consequences of an America without the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo,” and concludes that “[p]reserving Buckleyis essential to protecting the First Amendment right to free speech.”
- At Fix the Court, Gabe Roth examines the justices’ recusals during October Term 2016, noting that “the justices have recused themselves 204 times – 200 times at the cert. stage and four times at the merits stage,” attempting to “explain the reasoning behind the justices’ step-asides during the past term,” and recommending that the Supreme Court adopt “a software-based conflict-check system.”
- In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on the justices’s summer activities, recapping “some of the remarks [they] have made off the bench since (or before) the court finished its business for the term in late June.”
- At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Christina Martin urges the Supreme Court to review a case in which the petitioners allege “that local governments violate the Takings Clause of the Constitution when they keep the surplus proceeds from tax sales.”
- The University of California, Irvine Law School has posted a video of its 7th annual Supreme Court Term in Review.
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.