Tuesday round-up
In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports on the Court’s disclosure of “after-the-fact changes to its decisions”; Kent Scheidegger discusses Liptak’s story and the Court’s publication practices more generally at Crime and Consequences.
Briefly:
- At Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro and Randal John Meyer urge the Court to grant review in a case by a company dubbed “Uber in the sky.”
- In The National Law Journal, Arthur Bryant argues that, although the Court’s ruling last Term in the class-action case Spokeo v. Robins was “technically . . . a victory for the company,” as a practical matter “it was a huge loss.”
- At Casetext, David Boyle argues that “if a candidate wants the vote of thinking people, it might be best if that candidate weren’t advocating an amendment diminishing the Supreme Court and overturning Citizens United—especially if the candidate’s name is Hillary Clinton.”
Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY