WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, Nov. 5

The court is still in session on Election Day with oral arguments this morning in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra and E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera. Security has been increased around the building. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• SCOTUS punts on review of standard that helped mentally disabled man avoid death penalty (Ryan Knappenberger & Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service)
• Billions at stake as SCOTUS takes up hospital case (Maya Goldman, Axios)
• Election Threatens to Upend Biden Battles at US Supreme Court (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law)
• Presidents and Justices (Steve Vladeck, One First)
• The Roberts Court Gets to Take Another Crack at Fair Labor Laws (Molly Coleman, Balls & Strikes) 

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, Nov. 4

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

• Supreme Court takes up Louisiana racial gerrymandering dispute (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Supreme Court will weigh in on new mostly Black Louisiana congressional district, after election (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)
• Supreme Court orders more review of Alabama’s request to execute inmate courts said is intellectually disabled (John Fritze, CNN)
• Facebook, Nvidia ask US Supreme Court to spare them from securities fraud suits (John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Cruel and unusual? Supreme Court wants new ruling in case involving convicted murderer with low IQ (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)

Petitions of the week

Anti-abortion activists ask justices to overrule ban on expressive activity outside clinics

The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

In its 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado law enacted to prevent groups or individuals who oppose abortion from protesting, handing out materials, or speaking to patients, doctors, or staff outside of medical facilities that offer the procedure. Two years ago, when the court overruled the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion that Hill has “distorted” the First Amendment. This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether to overrule Hill.

Abortion opponents have brought the question to the court in challenges to two cities’ bans on activism outside of clinics and hospitals.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, Nov. 1

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

• US Supreme Court girds for rush of election-related litigation (Andrew Chung, Reuters)
• Thousands of ballots are at stake as the Supreme Court considers Pennsylvania voting rules (Marc Meredith & Michael Morse, NBC News)
• Supreme Court rejects Cornel West’s last-ditch bid for PA voter recognition (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• South Carolina to execute Richard Moore despite objections from judge and jurors: ‘Grant him mercy’ (Sam Levin, The Guardian)
• Loper Bright Remand Is Early Test for Agency Rules Post-Chevron (Taylor Mills, Bloomberg Law)

RELIST WATCH

Timing rules for reviewing deportation decisions concerning persecution or torture risk

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court has taken a lot of action on relisted cases since our last installment. The court granted review of three cases concerning the appropriate venue for challenges to certain kinds of Environmental Protection Agency decisions, as well as one case addressing the factors a sentencing judge can consider when revoking a defendant’s term of supervised release and ordering that person incarcerated. The court also denied review in one relisted case involving the constitutionality of restrictions on the president’s authority to remove commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And the court denied review of a case asking whether the takings clause is violated when the reason for taking property is a pretext for blocking an owner’s intended plans for another use, although Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to review it.