Marshall Geisser Law | Wednesday round-up
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-19530,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

The other day the United States federal government asked the Supreme Court to permit all the arrangements of President Donald Trump’s September 27 entry restriction to enter into result while the federal government appeals an across the country injunction released by a district court judge in Hawaii that now obstructs enforcement of essential parts of the restriction. Amy Howe has this blog‘s protection, which initially appeared atHowe on the Court Extra protection originates from Josh Gerstein at Politico, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, and Ariane de Style at CNN.

At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy takes a look at Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, where the justices will choose whether the presence of possible cause beats a Very first Change retaliatory-arrest claim. The Los Angeles Times editorial board weighs in on the case, arguing that “if the First Change suggests anything, federal government authorities should not have the ability to penalize dissenters, even disrespectful ones, by selectively subjecting them to apprehend– even if the arrest may be validated on other premises.”


  • The Open File keeps that in Floyd v. Alabama, a pending cert petition, the state courts have actually once again left it approximately the United States Supreme Court– obviously the last and just line of defense versus race discrimination in jury choice– to call a fig a fig.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “takes a look at th[e] lawyers … who ha[ve] submitted effective petitions for the existing term [and] tracks these lawyers’ success at bringing cases to the Court on cert because the 2013 term.”
  • At Quomodocumque, mathematician Jordan Ellenberg differs with a claim made at oral argument on behalf of the state of Wisconsin in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford, asserting that” the concept that [the] performance space flags neutral maps as typically as partisan maps is simply incorrect, and it should not have actually belonged to the state’s argument prior to the court.”

We count on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or understand of a current (released in the last 2 or 3 days) post, post, podcast, or op-ed associating with the Supreme Court that you ‘d like us to think about for addition in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared initially on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment