WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, May 2

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• How an Ordinary Guy Took a $3,000 Case to the Supreme Court (Ben Foldy, The Wall Street Journal)
• Senators seek Supreme Court intervention in EPA smog fight (Sean Reilly, E&E News) 
• Petition to honor Mitsuye Endo and her historic Supreme Court victory (Jana Katsuyama, Fox KTVU Fox 2)
• Trump immunity plea sets up test for Supreme Court on judicial restraint (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service)
• What the Supreme Court is doing right in considering Trump’s immunity case (Claire Wofford, The Conversation)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, May 1

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Supreme Court declines to block Texas pornography restriction (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Trucker failed drug test after taking CBD supplement. Supreme Court to decide if he can sue (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Jones Day Leads in Supreme Court Arguments With New Faces (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law)
• Justice Stephen Breyer’s blunt message to Supreme Court conservatives: ‘Slow down’ (Devin Dwyer, Patty See, & Sarah Herndon, ABC News)
• Amy Coney Barrett is no handmaid to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority (Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post)

EMERGENCY APPLICATION

Court allows Texas to enforce age verification for online porn sites

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to temporarily block a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify their users’ ages. In a brief unsigned order, the justices turned down a request from a group of challengers that included an adult industry trade association to put the law on hold to give them time to seek review of a ruling by a federal appeals court.

There were no public dissents from Tuesday’s order.

The law, known as H.B. 1181, was originally slated to go into effect last September. But the challengers, led by the Free Speech Coalition, went to federal court in August, challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra barred the state from enforcing the age-verification requirement, concluding that it likely violated the First Amendment. By requiring adults to submit personal data, Ezra reasoned, the law would discourage adults from accessing the websites because of concerns about identity theft and extortion. Moreover, Ezra added, other alternatives – such as content-filtering systems – are better suited to achieve the state’s goal of shielding children from sexual content.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, April 30

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Supreme Court to hear cases on veterans’ benefits, pet food and visas next term (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post)
• US Supreme Court won’t hear Elon Musk dispute over SEC settlement (John Kruzel, Reuters)
• ‘Surprising’ and ‘disturbing’: Legal experts react to Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s immunity claim (Alexandra Hutzler, ABC News)
• Why an Immunity Ruling in Trump’s Favor Might Not Alter the Shape of His Trial (Charlie Savage, The New York Times)
• The Supreme Court has much more than Trump’s immunity claim to resolve (Jordan Rubin, MSNBC)

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme Court takes up RICO and veterans “benefit of the doubt” cases

In a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference last week, the justices granted review in four cases – adding those cases to the lone four cases that they have agreed to take up for the 2024-25 term since early January. Monday’s grants involve (among others) the interpretation of federal racketeering laws and the “benefit of the doubt” rule for veterans.

In Medical Marijuana v. Horn, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a commercial truck driver who lost his job after he failed a drug test can bring a claim under federal racketeering laws against the makers of the product that he says was responsible for that failed test.

The driver, Douglas Horn, began taking Dixie X CBD Dew Drops Tincture to relieve chronic pain from injuries he sustained in a serious trucking accident in 2012. Horn and his wife, Cindy Harp-Horn, who was also a truck driver, believed – based on the advertising for the tincture – that the product did not contain THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Horn and Harp-Horn sought to confirm the absence of THC, however, by watching YouTube videos, reviewing the “frequently asked questions” page on the Dixie X website, and calling the company’s customer service line.