Lawyers Planet | Monday round-up
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-11306,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive

Monday round-up

Monday round-up

Monday round-up

Protection and commentary continue in Janus v. AFSCME, where the justices will choose whether an Illinois law permitting public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities breaks the First Modification. For The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that throughout oral argument in the event recently, “[w] hile his coworkers sparred over required aids, complimentary speech and the benefits of Abood— which holds that necessary costs maintain “labour peace” and avoid scrooges from free-riding on their dues-paying coworkers– Justice [Neil] Gorsuch sat mum.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost mentions that “[i] f Supreme Court arguments were scored in the way of high school dispute competitions, liberal justices would be credited with a hands-down win in recently’s face-off.” The Nation provides a discussion “with author and organizer Jane McAlevey about Janus … and the method forward for labor.” [ Disclosure: Goldstein & & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers add to this blog site in numerous capabilities, is amongst the counsel on an amicus short in assistance of the participants in this case.]

Constitution Daily’s We the People podcast includes a conversation of United States v. Microsoft Corp., which asks whether the Stored Communications Act enables the federal government to get from e-mail service providers to information that is kept overseas. At Wired, David Newman observes that “a judgment for either side will likely contribute to the pressure on Congress to act by highlighting the level to which the existing structure is severely dated and in requirement of modification.” [ Disclosure: Goldstein & & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers add to this blog site in numerous capabilities, is amongst the counsel on an amicus short in assistance of the participant in this case.]

At Governing, Liz Farmer reports that “[t] he U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a landmark case that might raise the federal restriction on sports betting in 46 states,” Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, “[b] ut that hasn’t stopped some locations from banking on the result.” At ESPN, David Purdum and Ryan Rodenberg take “an appearance back at how New Jersey’s chances stood throughout this prolonged fight.”


  • At NPR‘s All Things Thought about, Nina Totenberg provides possible descriptions for the Supreme Court’s “continued rejection to act” in gun-related cases, recommending that either “the court thinks it set standards in 2008 in the Heller choice and would simply as quickly avoid of this,” or, “most likely[,] … neither side, those justices who support rigorous weapon policy laws or those who oppose them, … makes sure that they have the votes to dominate if the court were to use up those concerns.”
  • At The National Law Journal (membership or registration needed), Marcia Coyle reports that “[t] he Trump administration’s Justice Department, regardless of its revealed remorse, is asking the United States Supreme Court not to evaluate obstacles to $380 million that third-parties are set to get as part of a bigger U.S. federal government settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers.”
  • At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that in their demand to the Supreme Court for a stay of “a judge-imposed congressional district map at the United States Supreme Court after the state’s greatest judicial tribunal overruled the old map, discovering it was deliberately drawn to prefer the GOP,” Pennsylvania Republicans argue “that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deliberately took over the legislature’s constitutional power to draw district lines.”
  • At the Brennan Center, Andrew Cohen weighs in on Justice Neil Gorsuch’s viewpoint in Murphy v. Smith, where the justices held that courts should use approximately 25 percent of a judgment to pay lawyer’s costs in civil-rights cases induced behalf of detainees, arguing that “[w] hat the latest justice stated, in result, is that a suspicious federal law utilized for years to weaken responsibility in cases of jail abuse and disregard should be even more protective of corrections authorities as well as less congenial to prisoners,” a position that “does not bode well for Justice Gorsuch’s criminal justice jurisprudence moving forward.”
  • At The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin thinks about Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, “civic gadfly” Fane Lozman’s 2nd Supreme Court case in 5 years, where the justices will choose whether the presence of possible cause beats a retaliatory-arrest claim, observing that “Lozman had an uncommon issue prior to the Justices: his case was too excellent.”
  • At Rewire, Imani Gandy goes over Jennings v. Rodriguez, where the court held that immigration-law arrangements do not offer apprehended aliens a right to regular bond hearings; she keeps in mind that “even if Congress passed migration laws that allow necessary indefinite detention, that does not suggest those laws are constitutional.”

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) short article, 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] Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared initially on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment