Last week’s oral argument in in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the latest version of the Trump administration’s entry ban, continues to steal the limelight. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “[t]he justices spent a fair amount of time … asking lawyers whether Trump’s past comments mean he is forever forbidden from acting against a country with a Muslim majority.” At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle report that “[i]n the run-up to [the argument], the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday paused for a moment to allow a California lawyer to file an amicus curiae brief that takes the form of a haiku.”

In an op-ed for The Hill, Mark Miller suggests that “[i]f the tenor of Wednesday’s oral argument is any guide, then the waiver and review process — not included within the original, and much less detailed, travel ban — could lead to a successful outcome at the high court for the president’s side.” At ACSblog, Shoba Wadhia maintains that “[t]he [solicitor general]’s legal arguments glossed over the human cost of the travel ban for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents seeking to reunite with their close family members overseas.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost remarks that given the justices’ ostensible concern “about the risk of diplomatic friction between the United States and other countries when they decided to bar suits in U.S. courts against foreign corporations for violations of international law” last week in Jesner v. Arab Bank, “it was ironic that [they] breathed not a single word during arguments the next day over the diplomatic harm the United States is already suffering from President Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban.” Josh Blackman and Joshua Matz discuss the argument in a podcast at Constitution Daily.

Briefly:

  • For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[a]fter seven months in which the court heard 63 oral arguments, 39 cases — 62% of the total — remain unresolved,” including “those featuring the most controversial issues — immigration, abortion, gay rights, partisan politics, the power of labor unions and the lure of sports betting, to name a few.”
  • At The Narrowest Grounds, Asher Steinberg looks at last week’s opinion in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, in which the court held that when the patent office institutes inter-partes review, it must decide the patentability of all the claims a petitioner has challenged, pointing out that “after SAS Institutethere is really only one Justice, Justice Kagan, who is committed on paper to upholding Chevron.”
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the Supreme Court has submitted to Congress this year’s set of amendments to the federal rules of procedure.
  • At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Cori Alonso-Yoder discusses last week’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, in which the court held that the catchall section of the immigration law’s criminal-removal provision is unconstitutionally vague.
  • The editorial board of The New York Times writes an open letter imploring Justice Anthony Kennedy not to retire because the Supreme Court “is facing an institutional crisis, and it needs you.”
  • At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Beth Stephens decries the court’s opinion in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which held that foreign corporations cannot be sued for human-rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute, arguing that “the little that remains of the statute is hanging by an ever-weaker thread.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 30, 2018, 7:08 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/monday-round-up-391/