Friday round-up

Briefly:

• At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley covers “two abortion controversies from Indiana and Louisiana on which the justices may act in the coming months.”
• At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro passes on former solicitor general Paul Clement’s “tips on how to get the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent.”
• In the latest episode of Rewire.News’ Boom! Lawyered podcast, Imani Gandi and Jessica Mason Pieklo argue that “the fallout from the Court’s decision to overturn decades of precedent” in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt “could have major ramifications for … abortion rights, marriage equality, and more.”
• In an op-ed at Law.com, Gabe Roth laments the lack of agreement among the justices on “how they comport themselves as purportedly unprejudiced public officials, a place where consensus should rule the day,” on topics ranging from ownership of individual stocks to speaking engagements to subsidized travel.

• At The Economist, Steven Mazie profiles Judge Amy Coney Barrett, “a rising star of the conservative judicial movement” who could be at the top of the president’s list to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy.
• At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere weigh in on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s limits on transporting personal firearms, arguing that “[u]sing modern developments and evidence-free security claims as a reason to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to armed self-defense is inconsistent with our Constitution.”
• In another Cato at Liberty post, Ilya Shapiro and others urge the court to review Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. Washington, which stems from a complaint filed under a Washington state campaign-finance law for “fail[ure] to disclose … pro bono legal work as a “’campaign expenditure,’” arguing that “[w]hen a law tries to make lawyers disclose work undertaken free of charge, it opens them up to harassment and political attack, and makes it more difficult for citizens to find legal representation, discouraging political speech for both.”

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!