Thursday round-up

Alex Swoyer reports for The Washington Times (via How Appealing) that “[a]ccording to a new poll, Americans want to see the court, which has been shuttered by the COVID-19 pandemic, back at work — remotely if need be — hearing oral arguments, including for highly watched cases concerning President Trump’s financial records.” At Reuters’ On the Case blog (via How Appealing), Alison Frankel talks to an advocate in one of the cases on the Supreme Court’s recently postponed April argument calendar, who is still “hoping arguments will take place” because they “are a critical part of the justices’ process of deciding cases.”At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps maintains that “[t]wo months is plenty of time for even those as busy as the justices to devise a way to hold oral arguments remotely—to show the nation that the courts remain stalwart in the face of terror” – “[a]nd if they can’t do their job, then by God, they should at least have the grace to explain to us why not.”

At The Economist, Steven Mazie notes that although “[t]he justices, wary of covid-19’s threat, have themselves suspended hearings for the first time since 1918,” in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, which blocked a lower court order extending the deadline for mailing absentee ballots in Wisconsin’s election because of the coronavirus pandemic, “[t]heir message to Wisconsinites during the global health crisis  … was: never mind the pandemic, get on with your elections.” Andrew McCarthy argues at National Review that “[r]egardless of what one thinks about the ruling, … the Supreme Court is getting a bad rap[:] … It was not the justices’ decision to go forward with Wisconsin’s primary during a pandemic, [n]or is the Court any way responsible for the risks entailed by in-person voting.”

At Subscript Law, Mariam Marshedi has a graphic explainer for Monday’s opinion in Babb v. Wilkie, which held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not require federal employees to prove that age discrimination was the but-for cause of an adverse personnel decision, although some forms of relief may not be available without such proof. In a video on his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel calls the decision a “hollow victory” for the employee.

Briefly:

• At AlterNet, Bill Blum writes that in 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, “the only real remaining question is the scope of the NRA’s inevitable victory.”

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!