Tuesday round-up

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that on Friday the Supreme Court granted a request by Republican legislators in Ohio and Michigan “to put lower court rulings that found partisan gerrymandering in those states on hold while they appeal.” For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “[w]hile state and lower federal judges, including both Democratic and Republican appointees, have been approaching consensus on the constitutional harms of partisan gerrymanders—and the practical means for curing them—at March arguments” in partisan-gerrymandering cases from North Carolina and Maryland, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, “the Supreme Court appeared split along its conservative-liberal divide[:] The court’s four liberals appeared ready to remedy partisan gerrymanders, but members of the conservative majority expressed skepticism over potential cures and questioned the courts’ role in reviewing political tasks such as drawing legislative maps.”

Briefly:

• For The New York Times, Adam Liptak writes that, after the Supreme Court agreed to review 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, “[t]he city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation”; he observes that “[t]he question of whether the changes to the city’s gun regulation will make the case moot is a hard one.”
• For Capitol Media Services (via Tucson.com), Howard Fischer reports that “California officials are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to butt out of their dispute with Arizona over how California imposes its taxes on some of this state’s residents and businesses.”
• In an op-ed for Fox News, Kelly Shackelford weighs in on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, arguing that “[u]nless the state coerces someone into a religious belief or exercise or enacts laws or policies that purport to actually establish an official religion, there can be no violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

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!