Lawyers Planet | Wednesday round-up
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-4450,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

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-up

Yesterday the U.S. authorities requested the Supreme Court docket to permit all of the provisions of President Donald Trump’s September 27 entry ban to enter impact whereas the federal government appeals a nationwide injunction issued by a district courtroom choose in Hawaii that now blocks enforcement of key parts of the ban. Amy Howe has this blog’s protection, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Further protection comes from Josh Gerstein at Politico, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, and Ariane de Vogue at CNN.

At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy seems to be at Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, during which the justices will determine whether or not the existence of possible trigger defeats a First Modification retaliatory-arrest declare. The Los Angeles Times editorial board weighs in on the case, arguing that “if the first Modification means something, authorities officers shouldn’t have the ability to punish dissenters, even impolite ones, by selectively subjecting them to arrest — even when the arrest could be justified on different grounds.”


  • The Open File maintains that in Floyd v. Alabama, a pending cert petition,the state courts have once more left it as much as the U.S. Supreme Court docket—apparently the final and solely line of protection in opposition to race discrimination in jury choice—to name a fig a fig.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “seems to be at th[e] attorneys … who ha[ve] filed profitable petitions for the present time period [and] tracks these attorneys’ success at bringing circumstances to the Court docket on cert for the reason that 2013 time period.”
  • At Quomodocumque, mathematician Jordan Ellenberg takes concern with a declare made at oral argument on behalf of the state of Wisconsin in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford, asserting that“the concept [the] effectivity hole flags impartial maps as typically as partisan maps is simply unsuitable, and it shouldn’t have been a part of the state’s argument earlier than the courtroom.”

We depend on our readers to ship us hyperlinks for our round-up. In case you have or know of a current (revealed within the final two or three days) article, put up, podcast, or op-ed referring to the Supreme Court docket that you simply’d like us to contemplate for inclusion within the round-up, please ship it to roundup [at] Thanks!

The put up Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment