05 Dec Tuesday round-up
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in a prominent case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the justices will think about whether the First Change bars Colorado from needing a baker to develop a cake for a same-sex wedding event. Amy Howe previewed the case forthis blog Jared Ham and Amanda Wong did the very same for Cornell Law School’sLegal Information Institute Extra protection originates from Mark Matthews for The Denver Post, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Steven Mazie for The Economic expert’s Espresso blog site, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “[t] he case’s significance is highlighted by the attention it has actually gotten: 100 amicus briefs have actually been submitted and individuals started encamping Friday afternoon on the walkway in front of the Supreme Court to protect an area” in the courtroom for the argument. At Fox News, Costs Mears reports that “[b] y wading once again into the culture wars, the justices will need to face current choices on both gay rights and spiritual liberty.” At Bloomberg BNA, Patrick Gregory profiles the females lawyers on each side of the case.
Commentary originates from the baker, Jack Phillips, in an op-ed for USA Today, Kristen Waggoner in an op-ed for The Washington Times, Jim Campbell in an op-ed for AZCentral, Michael Farris in an op-ed for Fox News, James Gottry in an op-ed for The Denver Post, Ross Runkel at his eponymous blog, Ryan Lockman at Lock Law Blog, Dorothy Samuels at The American Prospect, Steven Mazie at The Economic expert’s Democracy in America blog site, Brian Miller at Quillette, David Gans at Take Care, who preserves that “even Justices … who broadly translate the First Change’s warranty of the flexibility of speech ought to be doubtful of these brand-new complicity claims,” and Thomas Berg and Douglas Laycock at the Berkley Center, who argue that “[b] y acknowledging a thoroughly specified right for Phillips, the Supreme Court can make sure significant defense for both same-sex couples and spiritual dissenters.”
The other day the justices released orders enabling complete enforcement of the current variation of the Trump administration’s entry restriction while lawsuits continues in the lower courts. Amy Howe has this blog‘s protection. At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that “[t] he action recommends the high court might maintain the current variation of the restriction that Trump revealed in September.” Extra protection originates from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who likewise reports here that previously in the day, a “civil liberties group informed the Supreme Court … about President Trump’s online relay of anti-Muslim videos distributed by a British company.”
The justices likewise launched orders from last Friday’s conference the other day. At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that they “chose not to hear Houston’s appeal of a lower court judgment that tossed into doubt the city’s spousal advantages to gay married community workers, enabling a case that checks the reach of the landmark 2015 choice legislating same-sex marital relationship across the country to continue.” Extra protection originates from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that “as that case had actually established in attorneys’ filings, there were a number of layers of disagreement in between the 2 sides on procedural concerns about whether the case had actually reached the Court too soon.”
The other day the justices likewise heard oral argument in 2 cases. The very first was Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional difficulty to the federal restriction on sports wagering. Amy Howe has this blog‘s argument analysis, which initially appeared atHowe on the Court Extra protection of the argument originates from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, Nina Totenberg at NPR, Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (membership or registration needed), Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Jessica Gresko at the Associated Press, and Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, who reports that “[c] onservative … justices … suggested they might want to permit New Jersey to legislate sports wagering in a case that might lead the way for other states to do the very same thing.” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the case “will offer additional assistance regarding how the federal government can push or motivate states to embrace particular policies[, and] … might have significant ramifications for Trump administration top priorities like sanctuary cities.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog site, Ilya Shapiro provides a take on the oral argument. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the case.
The other day’s 2nd argument remained in Rubin v. Iran, where the justices thought about the shapes of resistance in cases including foreign state sponsors of terrorism. Amy Howe evaluates the argument for this blog; her analysis was very first released atHowe on the Court Subscript’s graphic explainer for the case ishere At Law.com, Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle offer a within take a look at Rubin and Christie and study the justices’ other behaviors today.
For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, which asks whether the presence of likely cause beats a retaliatory-arrest claim, Fane Lozman “has actually managed the uncommon task of transporting the city into the Supreme Court in 2 different cases.” At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod has a look at the problems in the event.
- At The National Law Journal (membership or registration needed), Marcia Coyle reports that in its reaction to the federal government’s cert petition in Hargan v. Garza, “[t] he American Civil Liberties Union on Monday called ‘unwarranted’ the United States Justice Department’s allegation that attorneys for the group acted unethically in their advocacy for a pregnant immigrant teenager who looked for an abortion.”
- At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog site, Ilya Shapiro and others prompt the court to evaluate a case, Knick v. Town of Scott, Pennsylvania, that “showcases the distinct obstacles dealt with by homeowner asserting profits claims.”
- In another publishing at Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro argues for another cert grant, in a case that asks the court to reverse the “misdirected” “‘ double sovereignty’ exception to that Double Jeopardy Provision, which the Supreme Court developed 60 years earlier– the concept that federal and state prosecutions need to be counted individually.”
- At SSRN, Hugo Farmer thinks about a few of the problems talked about throughout recently’s oral argument in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, which includes the whistleblower defenses of the Dodd-Frank Act.
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) short article, 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] scotusblog.com. Thank you!