Wednesday round-up

Marcia Coyle reports for The National Law Journal that [t]he U.S. Supreme Courts extraordinarypostponementof its March argument session injected new uncertainty into a high-stakes process for a small group of advocates and their clients who said now they will work to stay fresh in hopes of getting their turn at the lectern. At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery writes that [t]he court made the right call in postponing the upcoming March arguments, not only to safeguard the justices health, but also the health of all the other people who would be present in the courtroom. In an op-ed at CNN (via How Appealing), Elie Honig argues that the court went too far in postponing oral arguments altogether when it easily could have conducted those arguments as scheduled through live video feed.

Briefly:

• At Notes on Liberty, Ethan Blevins urges the court to decide two pressing questions about the Constitutions role in protecting property rights in a case stemming from a rule in Seattle that requires landlords to rent to the first person to walk in the door, so long as they check out on paper.

We relyon 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 youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!