Thursday round-up

Briefly:

• At CNN, Joan Biskupic argues that “Chief Justice John Roberts’ legacy will be forever entwined with President Donald Trump’s,” not only because “Roberts was in the chair presiding over the two-week hearing and historic vote on Wednesday to acquit Trump” but also because the chief “now faces unprecedented litigation at the Supreme Court involving the President’s personal business dealings.”
• At the Harvard Law Review Blog, Aaron Tang suggests that there is an issue lurking in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the dispute over public funding for parents who send their children to religious schools, “that progressives ought to take to the mat: nearly one-third of the private religious schools that participated in Montana’s voucher program expressly discriminate against LGBT staff and/or employees.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
• At The Hill, Harper Neidig reports that on Monday the federal government filed briefs in two cases regarding subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s tax returns, “arguing … that the multiple subpoenas for [Trump’s] financial records are unconstitutional” because “the Constitution prohibits local law enforcement from investigating the president[, and] Congress must overcome high hurdles when seeking information from him.”
• At the Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the justices will consider a petition challenging the Affordable Care Act at their next conference, scheduled for February 21, with “House Democrats and a coalition of blue states…[asking] the justices to process the case on an expedited basis” and the federal government telling the court “that it should not hear the case at this juncture.”
• At Governing, Jed Pressgrove outlines the dual impact of the court’s 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair: the potential for “billions in new revenue” for state and local governments via sales taxes levied on online merchants like Amazon, but also complications from “businesses making mathematical errors, given the complexity of sales taxes across the United States.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
• In an op-ed for The Hill, Raul Reyes laments the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote to lift a stay on the federal government’s “public charge” rule last month, contending that the rule “limits the ability of working-class and low-income people to obtain lawful permanent residency” and “should not have been approved – even on a temporary basis.”
• At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger predicts that the appeals filed by Texas inmate Abel Ochoa, whose execution is scheduled for tonight at 6:00 p.m. CDT, have a low chance of success at the Supreme Court: “A case is pretty much over when the federal court of appeals panel turns it down. Further consideration on the merits by the full court of appeals or Supreme Court is possible but unlikely.”
• In an essay for the Texas Law Review, Lisa Blatt discusses her career arguing cases at the Supreme Court as a “Lady Lawyer,” a moniker she chooses to own rather than shun “because my success as a lawyer has come in no small part from incorporating my identity as a woman, wife, and mother into my professional status.”

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!