WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, April 7

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 rejects challenge to New York gun law (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Appeals court halts Trump independent agency firings, spurring Supreme Court battle (Zach Schonfeld & Ella Lee, The Hill)
• A Split on the Right Over Whether Teenagers Can Have Guns (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• As judges stymie Trump with nationwide orders, pressure builds on US Supreme Court (Andrew Chung, Reuters)
• Trump Administration Touts Supreme Court Victory in Funding Cut Dispute (Sean O’Driscoll, Newsweek)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants

The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon put on hold an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in grants that it terminated in February because they funded programs that included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

In an unsigned three-page opinion, a majority of the court explained that the government likely would not be able to get the funds back once they were disbursed. Moreover, the majority added, the recipients of the funds would not be permanently harmed if the funds are withheld while the litigation continues.

The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that he would have denied the government’s request. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, calling the court’s ruling a “mistake.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented, writing that it was “beyond puzzling that a majority of the Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency.”

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, April 4

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

• Supreme Court sides with truck driver who said CBD got him fired (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Trump Lawyer Dean John Sauer Confirmed as Solicitor General (John Crawley, Bloomberg Law)
• Trump’s Pick to Argue at Supreme Court Made His Career in Culture Wars (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times)
• Karen Read’s lawyers ask US Supreme Court to step in her case, arguing ‘double jeopardy’ (Alex Svenson & Emily Maher, WCVB5)
• The Supreme Court Precedent That Should Free Mahmoud Khalil (Brad Snyder, Slate)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place

A group of nonprofits challenging the layoffs of thousands of probationary employees urged the Supreme Court to leave in place an order by a federal judge in San Francisco that would require the federal government to reinstate more than 16,000 employees who were fired by six agencies in February. “It strains credulity that returning employees to work would cause irreparable harm to the Government,” the group said in a 40-page filing, “when these employees had the same workplaces, credentials, benefits, and training just a few weeks ago.”

In the federal government, probationary employees are those who have been newly hired for a position, normally within the past year. Not all probationary employees are new to the federal government or the workforce, however; the term also applies to experienced federal employees who transfer to a new role. In February, the Trump administration fired tens of thousands of probationary employees as part of its broader effort to shrink the size of the federal workforce.

RELIST WATCH

Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial

 The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

Over the past couple of conferences, the Supreme Court has continued to clear out the rolls of relisted cases. Remarkably, the Supreme Court denied review without comment in the most recent newly relisted case, Escobar v. Texas, in which Texas conceded that erroneous DNA evidence had contributed to the defendant’s conviction for capital murder.

The court denied review on March 24 in Franklin v. New York, involving the right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. But Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, in separate opinions respecting the denial of certiorari, suggested that the court would need to revisit the landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v.Washington that narrowed the use of hearsay testimony in criminal trials.