Friday round-up

Briefly:

• In a Washington Post opinion piece, Leah Litman argues that President Donald Trump’s Tuesday executive order – which seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 census count used to determine congressional representation – confirms that the administration’s arguments before the Supreme Court in last year’s census case, Department of Commerce v. New York, were pretextual. The administration “did not want to collect citizenship information to enforce the Voting Rights Act, as it had maintained,” Litman writes. She also predicts that the court is unlikely to uphold the new executive order.
• In Vox, Ian Millhiser takes a detailed look at how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence would change if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to leave the court this year.
• In an op-ed for the American Constitution Society’s Expert Forum blog, Rebecca Woodman, the lead attorney for Wesley Purkey, describes the lead-up and immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s July 16 ruling that allowed Purkey to be executed.
• Brandon Evans of S&P Global Platts examines how the court’s recent ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma may affect oil and natural gas production in Oklahoma. The decision, which held that Congress failed to terminate the reservation status of Native American land in the state, “puts additional risk on industry operations located in” the affected areas, “as future legal challenges are likely,” Evans writes.

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, please send it to roundup@scotusblog.com. Thank you!