02 Apr Monday round-up
At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the “Trump administration asked the United States Supreme Court to drop a pending case over federal government access to e-mails saved overseas, stating a brand-new federal law has actually removed the case of any useful significance.” Extra protection of the lawyer general’s movement in United States v. Microsoft Corp., originates from Ellen Nakashima forThe Washington Post [ Disclosure: Goldstein & & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers add to this blog site in different capabilities, is amongst the counsel on an amicus quick in assistance of the participant in this case.]
At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog site, Anthony Francois weighs in on recently’s oral argument in Hughes v. United States, which “asks the Supreme Court to offer much better assistance to the lower courts on exactly what to do when the Supreme Court cannot settle on a legal concept,” arguing that “[h] ow the Court chooses Hughes has direct ramifications for how the lower courts use the fractured choice in Rapanos v. United States,” where “a bulk of the Court overruled EPA and Army Corps policies unconditionally specifying all tributaries as ‘accessible waters’ under the Tidy Water Act, however disagreed [on] why.” At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg recommends that “the Court ought to use the “sensible subset” guideline to govern fractured viewpoints most of the times, other than if the sensible subset guideline produces ridiculous outcomes.”
At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser preserves that this term’s partisan-gerrymandering cases show that “[t] he Chief Justice of the United States dislikes government,” asserting that “[h] e harbors various mistaken beliefs about how citizens act and how they believe,” mistaken beliefs [that] frequently form the basis for his judicial choices.” At the Election Law Blog, Nicholas Stephanopolous asserts that in among the cases, Gill v. Whitford, an obstacle to Wisconsin’s statewide electoral map, “the Court cannot punt … by holding that Mr. Whitford (and other complainants in his position) do not have standing,” since “[e] ven if they lack it, other complainants do not,” and “under the Court’s precedents, those other complainants are complimentary to challenge the district map as a whole.”
- At the Associated Press, Jessica Gresko reports that “drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to action in[to]” a disagreement over the size of prescription eye drops.
- Mark Oswald reports for the Albuquerque Journal that the Cato Institute “is asking the United States Supreme Court to utilize a claim over a deadly shooting by a New Mexico State Authorities officer to roll back the ‘certified resistance’ that safeguards cops from liability.”
- At CNN, Ariane de Style reports that as speculation about the possible retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy “increases once again, court watchers question exactly what entered into his estimation for remaining on the bench last term– and if anything’s altered ever since.”
- In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Michael Waldman slams “[r] etired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens[‘] … contact us to rescind the Second Modification,” identifying the proposition “politically risky and lawfully unneeded.”
- At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost thinks about the history of Supreme Court impeachments and concludes that “the nation and the Court itself can not stand up to another distressing episode in the politicization of the country’s last, finest wish for equivalent justice under law.”
- In an op-ed for The Hill, Peter Margulies and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia weigh in on Trump v. Hawaii, an obstacle to the current variation of the Trump administration’s entry restriction, arguing that the restriction is “an effort to reanimate the nationwide origin quotas that the 1965 Congress disposed of.”
We depend 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 connecting to the Supreme Court that you ‘d like us to think about for addition in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!