Monday round-up

At ABC News, Devin Dwyer collects mostly positive reviews of the court’s recent livestreamed telephonic arguments, reporting that “[t]he coronavirus pandemic introduced America to its Supreme Court in action, and millions had reason to be riveted by what they heard.” At AP, Jessica Gresko offers “five things to know about the recent telephone arguments.”

Briefly:

• At CNBC (via How Appealing), Tucker Higgins reports that “[t]he Supreme Court is looking eager to weigh in on the Second Amendment weeks after it punted on its first substantial gun rights case in nearly a decade[:] Ten different guns cases were on the agenda of the justices’ private conference on Friday, where they met to decide which cases they will hear in the upcoming term.”

• At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro talks to Tobi Young, who “was believed to be the first known enrolled citizen of a Native American tribe to serve as a law clerk at the high court,” about her experience clerking for Justice Neil Gorsuch in October Term 2018.
• At the Brennan Center for Justice, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy writes that “[i]n some good news for reformers working to combat political corruption and empower small donors, the Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Seattle’s ‘democracy voucher’ program providing public financing for local elections.”
• The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) urges the court to review Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, a challenge to mandatory bar fees, and to continue the Roberts Court’s “vigorous protection of First Amendment rights.”
• At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost looks at two cases in which prison inmates have asked the Supreme Court to revive court orders requiring “prison officials last month to do more to protect inmates from the coronavirus.”
• The editorial board of National Review weighs in on R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the court will decide whether federal employment discrimination law bars discrimination against transgender people based either on their status as transgender or on sex stereotyping, arguing that “[t]here can be no dispute that, in 1964, the original public meaning of ‘sex’ was anatomical and biological.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of one of the respondents in this case.]
• Commentary on the recent death of Aimee Stephens, the plaintiff in Harris, comes from Shirley Lin at the Human Rights at Home Blog.
• An episode of The Economist’s Checks and Balance podcast looks at how, in Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance, which involve the president’s efforts to shield his financial records from subpoenas issued to his accountant and lenders by three congressional committees and a New York grand jury, “[t]he court’s power over the presidency is being tested while the justices face the frustrations of remote working.”

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!