WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, Jan. 14

The justices will start off oral arguments this morning with Thompson v. U.S., a member of Chicago’s most famous political dynasty’s challenge to his conviction on charges that he made “false statements,” about loans he hadn’t paid, to influence a financial institution. The court will then hear a former Halliburton employee’s effort to renew his age discrimination suit against the energy company in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services. Listen live at 10 a.m. EST. 

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Supreme Court Clears a Path for Climate Lawsuits to Proceed (Karen Zraick, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court rejects Utah’s push to wrest control of public land from the federal government (Lindsay Whitehurst & Hannah Schoenbaum, The Associated Press)
• US supreme court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling (Jason Wilson, The Guardian) 
• How Religious Schools Became a Billion-Dollar Drain on Public Education (Alec MacGillis, The New Yorker)
• US Supreme Court weighs retirees’ ability to sue for disability bias (Daniel Wiessner, Reuters) 

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme Court declines to step into Maryland gun licensing and Hawaii climate change suits

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s handgun licensing regime, as well as a pair of cases seeking to hold oil and gas companies responsible for damage caused by climate change. The announcement came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on Friday. The justices granted three cases from that conference on Friday afternoon, and they did not add any additional cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term on Monday.

The justices denied review in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, in which gun-rights groups and gun owners challenged Maryland’s requirement that most residents obtain a license before buying a gun. They argued that because state law already requires them to undergo a background check to buy a gun, the license requirement (which includes another background check and a gun-safety course) imposes too heavy a burden on their right to bear arms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law last year. It pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which he indicated that laws requiring gun owners to undergo background checks or complete gun-safety courses will generally be constitutional under that decision’s new Second Amendment test.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, Jan. 13

The court will hear oral arguments this morning in Hewitt v. United States, on the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions, and Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the case of a retired Florida firefighter looking to sue her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging discrimination in how retirement benefits are provided. Listen live at 10 a.m. EST. 

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• Supreme Court allows state and local climate suits against oil companies to proceed (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Supreme Court Rejects New Bid to Let President Fire Agency Heads (Greg Stohr, Bloomberg)
• Supreme Court leans toward upholding law that could ban TikTok (Lawrence Hurley & Kat Tenbarge, NBC News)
• Supreme Court to hear case challenging Obamacare’s preventive coverage (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post)
• Senate immigration bill aims to overturn Supreme Court precedent in a sea change for legal system, experts say (Tierney Sneed, CNN)

SCOTUS NEWS

Court adds three new cases

The Supreme Court on Friday evening added three new cases to its docket for the 2024-25 term. The cases, which involve issues ranging from the constitutionality of appointments to an HHS task force to student loan forgiveness and mootness in tax cases, are likely to be among the final cases argued during the current term.

In Becerra v. Braidwood Management, the justices agreed to take up a challenge to the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services that issues recommendations for preventive medical services. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover some of those recommended services at no cost to patients.

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Supreme Court skeptical of ban on TikTok

The Supreme Court on Friday was divided over the constitutionality of a federal law that would require social-media giant TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its Chinese parent company can sell it by Jan. 19. During two hours of oral arguments, the justices raised questions about whether the law at the center of the case actually restricts TikTok’s freedom of speech, as well as about what will happen if there is no sale by the deadline.

Citing national security concerns, Congress enacted the law at the center of the case, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Controlled Applications Act, in 2024 as part of a package to provide aid to Ukraine and Israel. The law identifies China and three other countries – North Korea, Russia, and Iran – as “foreign adversaries” of the United States and bars the use of apps controlled by those countries. The law also defines applications controlled by foreign adversaries to include any app run by TikTok or ByteDance. 

TikTok and a group of its users went to federal court in Washington, D.C., to challenge the law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that argument and declined to put the law on hold, reasoning that the law was the “culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents.” Moreover, Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg added, the law was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China.”