Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

• Mario Ariza reports for the South Florida Sun Sentinel on a cert petition that highlights what experts say is a glaring legal loophole that allows the federal government to seize the property of innocent citizens at little cost or consequence to itself.
• At Bloomberg Law, Jacklyn Wille reports that [t]he U.S. Supreme Court on Monday signaled its interest in a lawsuit over the University of Pennsylvanias retirement plan by asking university employees to respond to the schools petition for review.
• At the Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that Justice Neil Gorsuch invoked J.R.R. Tolkiens tri-part epic The Lord of the Rings in a Monday concurrence that suggested the Supreme Court may need to curtail the use of nationwide injunctions.

• At Inside Sources, Neil Turkewitz warns that Google v. Oracle America, a dispute over Googles copying of 11,500 lines of Oracles computer code, presents a clash of ideologies that goes far beyond the technical issues related to computer interfaces. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
• In an article for the Wake Forest Law Review online posted at SSRN, John Vlahoplus discusses Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the court will decide whether federal law covers employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; he details textual grounds for Bostocks claim and landmark judicial decisions consistent with those grounds.
• Michael OSullivan reviews the new documentary Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, for The Washington Post (subscription required), observing that the film reveals much, while at the same time leaving us to wonder much.

We relyon 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 youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!