Monday round-up

At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “[t]he Trump administration is aggressively trying to take advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s new conservative majority, digging deep into the court’s rulebook to seek quick action on divisive issues.” Ariane de Vogue reports at CNN that “[t]he court, with its strong 5-4 conservative majority, is facing requests from an aggressive Trump administration to weigh in early on many of its most controversial policies in areas including immigration, LBGT rights, asylum and reinstating the citizenship question on the census.”

Devin Dwyer reports at ABC News that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking at a naturalization ceremony on Friday “in her first public remarks following a health scare last month, hailed immigrants as the ‘vanguard’ of an effort to remove ‘stains’ of discrimination from American society.” Additional coverage comes from Morgan Gstalter at The Hill.

Briefly:

• For this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe reports that on Friday, “Virginia legislators were back at the court, asking the justices to block proceedings in the lower court aimed at coming up with new maps for the 2019 election until the Supreme Court can rule” on a racial-gerrymandering challenge to 11 of the state’s legislative districts.
• At American Greatness, Mark Pulliam cautions against reading too much into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s vote last week not to join three of his conservative colleagues who voted to review a case involving “the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring suits challenging the state’s decision to remove Planned Parenthood as a provider.”
• In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Peter Wallison weighs in on Kisor v. Wilkie, which asks when courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, arguing that “[a]n unchecked administrative state flies in the face of the Constitution’s structure” and that  “[i]n reasserting the judiciary’s authority to interpret the law, the court would be preserving the constitutional structure and fulfilling its own proper role.”
• Jimmy Hoover reports at Law360 (subscription required) that “[t]hey’ve only been colleagues for a few months, but President Donald Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court may be showing early signs of differences in their judicial approaches.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!