Copyright Qode Interactive 2016
Daniel Scott Lawrence | Friday round-up
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-675,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,side_area_uncovered_from_content,footer_responsive_adv,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive

Friday round-up

Friday round-up

Friday round-up

The other day the celebrations in Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project submitted letter briefs resolving the concern of whether the Trump administration’s current pronouncement changing the president’s March 6 entry restriction with brand-new constraints renders the cases moot. Amy Howe has this blog‘s protection, which initially appeared atHowe on the Court Extra protection originates from Richard Wolf for USA Today, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “[t] he Trump administration informed the Supreme Court … that there is no factor for the court to rule on the legality of the president’s previous restrictions on travel from specific nations, which lower court judgments versus the president’s position ought to be removed.” At Just Security, Marty Lederman describes that he “would not be at all shocked if the Court does ‘abandon” the viewpoints,” however does not “believe anything of much useful significance switches on whether it does so or not.”

The last oral argument of the week was on Wednesday in Class v. United States, which asks whether a guilty plea waives an obstacle to the constitutionality of an offense. Rory Little examines the argument forthis blog At Law 360 (membership needed), Jimmy Hoover reports that “[t] he tenor of the justices’ concerns recommend[s] expect the case of retired veteran Rodney Class, who is looking for to abandon his conviction for bringing guns on U.S. Capitol premises in 2013.”

At RealClear Politics, Matt Walter weighs in on Gill v. Whitford, where the court will choose whether Wisconsin’s electoral maps are the item of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, arguing that “holding a legislature’s redistricting strategy unconstitutional due to the fact that a political celebration is dissatisfied with its election outcomes would politicize the judiciary to its hinderance.” At FiveThirtyEight, Oliver Roeder and Galen Druke hypothesize that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s silence throughout the oppositions’ argument on Tuesday in Whitford recommends that “things do not look helpful for severe partisan gerrymandering.” Extra commentary on Whitford originates from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate.

At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that “Justice Neil M. Gorsuch exposed 2 sides of himself throughout oral arguments in controversial ‘crimmigration’ cases– at the crossway of migration and criminal law– throughout the very first 2 days of the United States Supreme Court’s 2017 term.” At the ImmigrationProf Blog, Denise Gilman takes a look at among the cases, Jennings v. Rodriguez, an obstacle to the extended detention of immigrants without bond hearings, arguing that “illusory possibilities for release on parole can not alternative to independent evaluation of detention choices.”


  • At the Library of Law and Liberty, Mark Pulliam evaluates “Scalia Speaks,” a brand-new collection of “lots of Scalia’s finest speeches (from hundreds that he provided), on a range of topics, to both legal and ordinary audiences.”
  • Rewire’s Boom! Lawyered podcast includes a conversation of how “legal precedents specifying your speech rights are being disputed and developed all the method as much as the United States Supreme Court.”
  • At the ACS Blog, Ruben Garcia examines Monday’s argument in Epic Systems v. Lewis, where the court will choose whether labor laws prohibited class waivers in employment agreement.
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman recognizes “[s] everal possible aspects of the justices’ brand-new oral argument techniques [that] emerged throughout the very first week of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term.”

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 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!

The post Friday round-up appeared initially on SCOTUSblog.

No Comments

Post A Comment