WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, Jan. 16

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

• Supreme Court seems open to age checks for online porn, though some free-speech questions remain (Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press)
• Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Jack Smith’s subtle indictment of the Supreme Court (Aaron Blake, The Washington Post)
• TikTok prepares to shut down app in US on Sunday, sources say (David Shepardson & Krystal Hu, Reuters) 
• Opinions vs. Judgments (Steve Vladeck, One First)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, Jan. 15

We are expecting one or more opinions from the court this morning at 10 a.m. EST. Join us for the live blog or follow along with Katie Barlow on TikTok.

The court will then hear oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a First Amendment challenge to a Texas law requiring pornography sites to identify the age of their users before granting access. Listen to the argument live shortly after 10 a.m. EST. 

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

• Supreme Court to hear arguments on Texas porn law (Jaclyn Diaz, KERA News)
• Supreme Court Could Rule On TikTok Ban Today—After Signaling It May Uphold Law (Alison Durkee, Forbes)
• Texas law requiring age verification for online porn goes before U.S. Supreme Court (Joseph Morton, The Dallas Morning News)
• Justice Department asks Supreme Court to rule narrowly on whether the ADA protects retirees (Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY)
• The Anti-Abortion Movement’s Backup Plan Won’t Work Without Trump (Mary Ziegler, Slate)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, Jan. 14

The justices will start off oral arguments this morning with Thompson v. U.S., a member of Chicago’s most famous political dynasty’s challenge to his conviction on charges that he made “false statements,” about loans he hadn’t paid, to influence a financial institution. The court will then hear a former Halliburton employee’s effort to renew his age discrimination suit against the energy company in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services. Listen live at 10 a.m. EST. 

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

• Supreme Court Clears a Path for Climate Lawsuits to Proceed (Karen Zraick, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court rejects Utah’s push to wrest control of public land from the federal government (Lindsay Whitehurst & Hannah Schoenbaum, The Associated Press)
• US supreme court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling (Jason Wilson, The Guardian) 
• How Religious Schools Became a Billion-Dollar Drain on Public Education (Alec MacGillis, The New Yorker)
• US Supreme Court weighs retirees’ ability to sue for disability bias (Daniel Wiessner, Reuters) 

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme Court declines to step into Maryland gun licensing and Hawaii climate change suits

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s handgun licensing regime, as well as a pair of cases seeking to hold oil and gas companies responsible for damage caused by climate change. The announcement came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on Friday. The justices granted three cases from that conference on Friday afternoon, and they did not add any additional cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term on Monday.

The justices denied review in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, in which gun-rights groups and gun owners challenged Maryland’s requirement that most residents obtain a license before buying a gun. They argued that because state law already requires them to undergo a background check to buy a gun, the license requirement (which includes another background check and a gun-safety course) imposes too heavy a burden on their right to bear arms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law last year. It pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which he indicated that laws requiring gun owners to undergo background checks or complete gun-safety courses will generally be constitutional under that decision’s new Second Amendment test.

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Justices appear supportive of retired firefighter’s discrimination suit

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared sympathetic to a retired Florida firefighter who is seeking to sue her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Karyn Stanley, who worked for the fire department in Sanford, Fla., for two decades before Parkinson’s disease forced her to retire at the age of 47, contends that the city violated the law when it changed its policy for subsidizing health insurance for retirees, leaving her to bear the entire cost of her health insurance for 15 years. But some justices questioned whether Stanley’s best argument was one that they could consider at all, while at least two justices – Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – remained silent, making it difficult to predict how they will vote.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled that Stanley could not bring her claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because she did not work for the city when her retirement benefits were terminated.

Stanley’s lawyer, Deepak Gupta, on Monday urged the justices to reverse that ruling. He told the justices that Stanley had “at least two paths” to victory. The “narrow path,” he argued, is to rule that Stanley can sue because she is alleging that she was the victim of discrimination while she was still employed by the city: She began working for the fire department in 1999, the city changed its policy on the subsidies in 2003, she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016, and she was forced to retire in 2018. From 2016 to 2018, Gupta explained, Stanley “was subject to a policy that she alleges reduced her compensation in a discriminatory manner.”