Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

• At the Legal Docket podcast, Mary Reichard and Jenny Rough speak with Kendra Espinoza, the lead challenger in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in which the Supreme Court decided in June that Montana could not prohibit a state scholarship program from helping families who send their children to religious schools.
• The Omaha World-Herald republishes a recent Los Angeles Times editorial calling for the court to make live audio of oral arguments a permanent feature. The live audio offered for the first time this spring did not “undermine the decorum of the court” or “lead to the nightmare scenarios of grandstanding lawyers or sensationalistic news coverage,” the editorial argues.
• Concerns about the court’s limited transparency have also reached around the globe. At Live Law, a popular legal news site in India, Vatsal Raj argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has not gone far enough to ensure public access to its arguments during the coronavirus pandemic. Relying in part on SCOTUSblog’s Courtroom Access project from earlier this year, Raj writes that “there exists no justification for denying public access to live video-streaming of court proceedings.”

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!