WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, Jan. 22

The justices will hear oral arguments in Barnes v. Felix and Cunningham v. Cornell University this morning. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Cop kills driver in routine stop. Supreme Court weighs whether it’s justified. (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• US Supreme Court weighs police conduct in fatal Houston shooting (Andrew Chung, Reuters)
• Cornell Case May Be Bellwether For ERISA Transaction Claims (Kellie Mejdrich, Law360)
• Supreme Court Questions Prosecutors’ Focus on Sex in Capital Case (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• The Online Porn Free-for-All Is Coming to an End (Marc Novicoff, The Atlantic) 

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, Jan. 21

The Supreme Court is meeting for oral arguments this morning in Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• ‘Split-second decision’: Supreme Court returns to the question of police killings (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Supreme Court ducks copyright battle between GOP firebrand and `Success Kid’ family (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Supreme Court revives case of death row inmate who says she was ‘sex-shamed’ at trial (John Fritze & Devan Cole, CNN)
• US Supreme Court turns away Pennsylvania mail-in ballot dispute (Andrew Chung, Reuters)
• Conservative Fifth Circuit Is an Outlier for Supreme Court (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law)

OPINION ANALYSIS

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban

This article was updated on Jan. 17 at 12:45 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously upheld a federal law that will require TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its Chinese parent company can sell off the U.S. company by Jan. 19. In an unsigned opinion, the justices acknowledged that, “for more than 170 million Americans,” the social media giant “offers a distinct and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community.” But, the court concluded, “Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”

At oral arguments on Jan. 10, TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, told the justices that TikTok would “go dark” in the United States if the company did not prevail in its challenge to the law. However, in a statement issued shortly after the ruling, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre indicated that with the law set to go into effect just one day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the Biden administration “recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the” Trump administration.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, Jan. 17

We are expecting one or more opinions from the court this morning at 10 a.m. EST. Join us for our live blog. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Supreme Court Could Rule On TikTok Ban Today—What To Know As Justices Signal They May Uphold Law (Alison Durkee, Forbes)
• Will TikTok be banned this weekend? What to know as Supreme Court decision looms (Greta Cross, USA Today)
• TikTok Makes Last-Minute Push as Supreme Court Is Poised to Rule on Ban (David McCabeAdam Liptak, & Sapna Maheshwari, The New York Times)
• Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban (Elizabeth Schulze, Devin Dwyer, & Steven Portnoy, ABC News)
• Texas urges Supreme Court to block nuclear waste site (Niina H. Farah, E&E News)

RELIST WATCH

In a slew of new cases, the justices take in closer look

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’s upcoming conference – the second January conference — is ordinarily the justices’ last opportunity to add new cases to the docket in time for them to review and decide the disputes by the summer recess. That cutoff may have something to do with the large number of new relists this week. While just one of the 420 cases considered at last week’s conference was a new relist, 27 of the 90 cases slated for this conference – nearly one-third of all cases – are new relists. That is nearly twice as many relists as we had after the end-of-summer long conference. The volume is so great that I’ll only be able to discuss a few in detail.