Thursday round-up
on May 10, 2018 at 6:58 am
Briefly:
- At Pacific Standard, Tom Jacobs looks at a new “analysis of 313 Supreme Court cases [that] found ‘male justices evaluate counsel based on their compliance with traditional gender norms, rewarding male counsel for cool, unemotional arguments, and rewarding female counsel for emotionally compelling arguments.’”
- For The Wall Street Journal, Eric Morath reports on a recent study concluding that “[l]abor unions could lose hundreds of thousands of members if the Supreme Court determines this spring [in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31] that public employees cannot be required to pay union dues.” [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 respondents in this case.]
- At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Christopher Whytock “speculate[s] … about what might happen for human rights litigation after the … decision” in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the court held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.
- In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that the upcoming decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trump v. Hawaii “will tell us a lot about how the current court thinks about religion — specifically, how it defines religious discrimination and who it thinks needs the court’s protection.”
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!
