Thursday round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in one of this term’s major cases, June Medical Services v. Russo, which involves a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Mark Walsh has a “view” of the argument from the courtroom for this blog. For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes and Ann Marimow report that “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh seemed key to the outcome of the Supreme Court’s consideration of a restrictive abortion law from Louisiana, with both wondering Wednesday how a 2016 decision striking down an identical law from Texas should guide their judgment.” At The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle reports that Justice Samuel Alito’s questions suggested that he is doubtful that the abortion providers have the legal right to sue on behalf of their patients, but that “his colleagues did not pick up the thread.” Bill Mears reports for Fox News that the case “is part of a larger effort by red states to pass laws regulating abortion to test how supportive the new justices will be of precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[h]owever the court rules, other abortion cases are likely to follow.” Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Joan Biskupic at CNN, and Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). Ruthann Robson recaps the argument at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that remarks during yesterday’s argument by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer at a “rally outside the court prompted a sharp rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that Roberts “criticized the Senate’s top Democrat for saying the Supreme Court’s two Trump appointees will ‘pay the price’ should they vote against abortion rights,” calling the comments “’not only inappropriate,’” but “’dangerous’” in an official statement issued after the argument had concluded. For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes and Colby Itkowitz report that “[t]he episode underscored the partisan politics that have engulfed the fight over the judiciary, which is supposed to be the nonpartisan branch of the government.” Additional coverage comes from Harper Neidig at The Hill. At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson suggests that “because Chief Justice Roberts has chosen to make this statement, his choices of when not to make similar statements is now a very legitimate subject of debate.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) writes that “the comments from Mr. Schumer reflect a significant escalation in Democratic efforts to bully the High Court.”

Ronald Mann analyzes Tuesday’s argument in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether the SEC can seek disgorgement of profits as a remedy in court for violating the securities-fraud laws, for this blog. Kari Hong has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, in which the court considered whether limitations on review of expedited deportation orders in habeas proceedings violate the Constitution’s suspension clause.

Briefly:

• Pratheepan Gulasekaram analyzes the court’s opinion in Kansas v. Garcia, in which the court ruled 5-4 that federal immigration law does not preempt a state prosecution for identity theft for using someone else’s Social Security number to obtain employment, for this blog.
• At Education Week’s School Law Blog (subscription required), Mark Walsh reports that a federal appeals court has once again ruled in favor of an employee “in an important case about gender-based pay disparities in education” “after the U.S. Supreme Court last year threw out an earlier decision in the case because one judge on the panel had died days before the original appellate decision was released.”
• At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern observes that “it’s already clear” from Garcia, as well as the two other 5-4 decisions that have been released so far this term, all of which “reached a maximally conservative outcome,” “that the majority has lost interest in appeasing their more liberal colleagues with concessions and compromises.”
• At Vox, Ian Millhiser writes that Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a high-profile constitutional challenge to the structure of the CFPB, which is led by a single director who can only be removed by the president for cause, “is unlikely to end in a bloodbath for the CFPB[, b]ut it is very likely to end in a victory for [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s vision of the unitary executive.”

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!