WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, March 6

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

• Supreme Court Rejects Trump on USAID Foreign-Aid Freeze (Greg Stohr, Bloomberg)
• Supreme Court split over spent nuclear fuel fight (Niina H. Farah, E&E News)
• US foreign aid contractors go to judge after Supreme Court boost (Brendan Pierson & John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Supreme Court sides with San Francisco, requiring EPA to set specific targets in water pollution permits (Robin Kundis Craig, The Conversation) 
• Judges vs. Trump (German Lopez, The New York Times)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, March 5

The court will issue one or more opinions this morning at 10 a.m. EST. Join us for live coverage. Following the opinion announcements, the court will hear Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, a dispute about nuclear waste management.

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

• Supreme Court Deals Blow to E.P.A. in Dispute Over Federal Water Rules (Abbie VanSickle & Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• US supreme court weakens rules on discharge of raw sewage into water supplies (Nina Lakhani, The Guardian)
• Supreme Court likely to shoot down Mexico’s $10B lawsuit against US gun makers (Devin Dwyer, ABC News)
• Supreme Court justices attended Trump’s address to Congress: Who was there? (Maureen Groppe & Anthony Robledo, USA Today)
• What John Roberts learned during his formative year as a Supreme Court clerk (Joan Biskupic, CNN)

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

High court likely to block Mexico’s suit against gun makers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled that it was likely to shut down a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government, seeking to hold seven major U.S. gun makers and a gun wholesaler responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels with U.S.-made weapons. A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government’s suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others.

Mexico filed the lawsuit that is now before the Supreme Court four years ago in Massachusetts, seeking billions of dollars and an end to the marketing and trafficking of illegal guns to Mexico. It contends that gun makers deliberately design and market their guns as military-style weapons, knowing that doing so makes them appealing to Mexican drug cartels. The gun makers also use a three-tier distribution system that helps to create an illegal market for their guns in Mexico, the Mexican government alleged: The gun makers sell to gun dealers, who then sell to gun buyers who are acting as “strawmen” for someone who could not legally buy a gun in Mexico.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, March 4

We are expecting one or more opinion from the court this morning at 10 a.m. EST. Join us for live coverage. Following the opinion announcements, the court will consider the Mexican government’s effort to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for cartel violence committed with U.S.-made weapons. Listen to Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos live just after 10. 

 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 won’t hear a challenge to college programs for reporting bias allegations (Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press)
• Supreme Court weighs Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun makers (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Mexico faces off with U.S. gunmakers at the Supreme Court (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling (Kiara Alfonseca, ABC News)
• Can the Media’s Right to Pursue the Powerful Survive Trump’s Second Term? (David Enrich, The New York Times)

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Court set to reverse heightened requirement for arbitration awards under FSIA

Monday’s argument in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. was an odd one: The justices asked no questions at all about the question on which they’d granted review, because the parties agree that the lower court’s answer to that question was incorrect. So almost all of the discussion at the argument focused on what, if anything, the court should decide before sending the case back to the court of appeals.

CC/Devas arises under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. When the law was adopted in 1976, Congress abandoned a two-century practice of federal courts determining, case by case based on the views of the State Department, whether a foreign country could be sued in the federal courts. Instead, it substituted a specific statutory framework that generally recognizes sovereign immunity for governmental activities but provides much more limited immunity for commercial activities. The provision relevant to this case, one of the exceptions to the recognition of immunity, calls for the exercise of jurisdiction in cases seeking to enforce arbitral awards.