Friday round-up

In an op-ed for The Hill, James Glassman takes issue with the Justice Department’s decision to “c[o]me down on the side of the PLO … in [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization,] a lawsuit filed by American families and victims of terrorist attacks in Israel.” In an op-ed at Townhall, Brian McNicoll points out that “[b]ipartisan [cert-stage] amicus briefs supporting the American families who sued were submitted by a significant number of members of Congress,” and argues that “it’s time for … the solicitor general to get on the side of Americans and against the side of terrorists.”

Briefly:

• At Law360 (subscription required), Keith Goldberg reports that “[a]n Arizona utility and a Tesla Inc. rooftop solar unit confirmed Wednesday that they’re close to a settlement resolving an antitrust suit brought by Tesla, less than two weeks before the S. Supreme Courtis to hear oral argument” in Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc., which asks when a state or local government can appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on state-action immunity. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.]

• Counting to 5 (podcast) reviews “two new opinions in argued cases, two newly granted cases for next term, and other recent orders from the Court.”
• At the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates discuss “[w]hat happens when a new administration changes the government’s legal position,” noting “the Trump Administration’s about-face in a few cases.”
• At Law.com, Marcia Coyle reports on a new study that concludes that “[d]uring the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have become less like traditional inquisitors during oral arguments and more like advocates for their own positions, a reflection of a politically polarized Congress and society.”
• At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy reports that “[o]ne of the most closely watched Supreme Court cases in April could affect the shopping habits of millions of Americans, as the Justices consider taxes paid on Internet product sales in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
• At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf explains why he finds the statements in Justice Thomas’ plurality opinion in Patchak v. Zinke about “[w]hat limits … the Constitution place[s] on Congress’s ability to exclude cases from the federal courts’ jurisdiction” “troubling.”
• At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at Jennings v. Rodriguez, in which the court held that immigration-law provisions do not give detained aliens a right to periodic bond hearings and remanded the case to the lower courts to determine whether the provisions are constitutional, maintaining that “[t]he majority’s statutory reading is arguable; its dismissive tone toward the constitutional issue is clearly wrong.”

 

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!