Thursday round-up

Briefly:

• At AP, Jessica Gresko reports that “when a justice is truly steamed to be on a decision’s losing side, the strongest form of protest is reading a summary of the dissent aloud in court”; because the pandemic is keeping the court off the bench this year, dissenters in controversial cases “might have to find a new way to show” their displeasure.
• Steve Vladeck has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s decision in Banister v. Davis, in which the court held that a prisoner’s motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) should not be treated as a second or successive petition for habeas corpus.
• At Final Decisions, Bryan Lammon discusses Monday’s opinion in Nasrallah v. Barr, which held that courts can review a noncitizen’s factual challenge to a denial of an application to defer removal under the Convention Against Torture, and which “marks the fifth and final appellate-jurisdiction case for this Supreme Court term.”
• At Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (subscription required), Richard Faulkner and Philip Loree discuss “the second trip to the U.S. Supreme Court for Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein Inc., on a petition for certiorari regarding whether an arbitration agreement unmistakably delegates to the arbitrator disputes about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate in the first place.”

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!