Monday round-up
on Jun 3, 2019 at 7:01 am
Briefly:
- At CNN, Ariane de Vogue looks at “the key remaining opinions” that the justices will release in the next few weeks.
- For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh reports that although “the justices have succeeded in keeping their merits docket relatively low-key this term,” “the court is not always in complete control of the cases that come before it[:] The so-called shadow docket, involving emergency applications and other matters outside the merits docket, requires the justices’ attention on a frequent basis and in sometimes unpredictable ways.”
- At Politico Magazine, Todd Tucker writes that Gundy v. United States, in which the justices will decide whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, is “part of a campaign to use the courts in service of a libertarian rollback of the administrative state.”
- For Capitol Media Services (via Tucson.com), Howard Schwartz reports that the court last week “rebuffed a bid to void a federal law that critics say places the desires and rights of Native American tribes over the constitutionally protected best interests of children.”
- In the second of two-part piece at Balkinization, Simon Lazarus explains “why [it] matters” that “Chief Justice Roberts’ 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, to uphold the ACA ‘individual mandate’ as a tax, was motivated by ideological and/or legal convictions, rather than by ‘institutional,’ i.e., political, considerations that moved him to subordinate such convictions.”
- At The Federalist, Cory Wisniewski urges the court to decide New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a Second Amendment challenge to New York City’s limits on transporting personal firearms that could become moot if the city amends its regulation; he argues that the justices “must take this opportunity to weigh in on the greater constitutional issues at stake, because “New York City is far from the only government with unconstitutional gun control laws on the books.”
- At Slate, Brian Frazelle warns that “[b]y enabling police officers to target viewpoints they dislike with near impunity,” last week’s decision in Nieves v. Bartlett, in which a divided court held that a plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim failed because police officers had probable cause to arrest him, “could be catastrophic for protesters and the press.”
- The latest episode of The Ginsburg Tapes (podcast) focuses on Craig v. Boren, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped litigate, the “case about beer” in which the Supreme Court “finally provides a clear standard that applies when sex discriminatory laws are challenged under the Equal Protection Clause—by carving out a middle tier.”
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!
