Coverage relating to recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg critical of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump comes from Nick Gass, who reports for Politico that Trump himself responded to Ginsburg, while Michael Shear and Maggie Haberman do the same for The New York Times; and from Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim, who report for Politico that “Democrats are struggling to defend Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s deepening criticism of” Trump. Commentary comes from Steven Mazie, who in The Economist suggests that Ginsburg’s “dismissal of the GOP’s surprise presumptive nominee may backfire. Anyone who loves RBG probably already dislikes Mr Trump, and vice versa.” And at PrawfsBlawg, Paul Horwitz contends that efforts to defend Ginsburg’s remarks “are mostly wrong.” Continue reading »
Because June has traditionally been a busy opinion-writing month for the Supreme Court, the Justices’ schedule of events was relatively light in comparison to previous months.
Coverage of recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in interviews with the Associated Press and The New York Times – in which, among other things, Ginsburg discussed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump – comes from Aaron Blake at The Washington Post (who has another story with Robert Barnes) and Tara Golshan of Vox; commentary comes from Roger Clegg, Matthew Franck, and Ed Whelan (here and here) at Bench Memos and from Paul Horwitz at PrawfsBlawg.
Coverage related to the Court’s decision striking down two provisions of a Texas abortion law comes from Erik Eckholm of The New York Times; commentary comes from Jessie Hill at PrawfsBlawg, who considers the “future strategy of anti-abortion activists.”
- In a series at RegBlog, Allison Hoffman looks at the Court’s ruling in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate and the accommodation offered by the Obama administration; she suggests that “the Court’s hope for compromise might go unanswered. The reply supplemental briefs by the petitioners and the government sounded more like battle hymns than kumbaya.”
- At Medium, the We Need Nine Campaign interviewed Vice President Joe Biden about the the Supreme Court vacancy and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the slot.
- At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman looks at the relationship between the language in briefs and the language that the Court uses in its opinions in a case.
- Jason Leopold of Vice reports that Justice Elena Kagan “and at least one other Supreme Court justice do use email, which means they may not be as technologically challenged as [Kagan] had suggested.”
Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit properly concluded—in conflict with the decisions of other courts—that an arbitrator’s refusal to refer a disqualification motion to a neutral decision maker, reliance on a party’s disqualification motion as basis for imposing punitive damages, or other circumstances like those presented here, where the arbitrator’s brother had served as lead counsel to petitioner’s chief competitor in recent litigation against petitioner, does not establish “evident partiality” justifying vacatur of the award; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with the decisions of other courts—that an appellee waives an argument pressed in, but not passed on by, the district court by not advancing it as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment below.
On July 12 at 12 p.m., the State & Local Legal Center will host a webinar on decisions from the past Term that involve redistricting. Speakers will include Rick Hasen, Bruce Adelson, and Mark Packman. More information is available on the center’s website.
Also, on July 19 at 1 p.m., the State & Local Legal Center will host a webinar on decisions from the past Term that will affect state and local government. Speakers will include Erin Murphy, Quin Sorenson, and Brent Kendall. More information is available on the center’s website.
Finally, on July 20 at 6 p.m., the New York City Bar and its Federal Court Committee will host a review of the just-concluded Supreme Court Term. Ira Feinberg and William Weinstein will co-chair the program; Jamal Greene will serve as moderator; and Akhil Amar, Judge Paul Engelmayer, Miguel Estrada, Caitlin Halligan, and Neal Katyal will serve as panelists. More information and registration for this event, which will be held at the New York City Bar offices, is available on the bar’s website.
Coverage of the Court is dominated by remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in interviews with the Associated Press and The New York Times. Among other things, Ginsburg discussed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the vacancy on the Court, and Justice Antonin Scalia. Other coverage comes from Nick Gass of Politico, Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog, Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post, and Rachel Chason of CNN Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether a penalty imposed for failing to pay a tax is itself a “tax” under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341; and (2) whether the Tax Injunction Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s challenge to the method by which the government obtains the information it uses to calculate tax liability.
Irv Gornstein, the executive director of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute, will join the Office of the Solicitor General, where he will serve as Counselor to the Solicitor General. Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn announced the news in a press release yesterday.
The move represents a return to the Solicitor General’s office for Gornstein, who served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General from 1994 until 2007. He then spent three years in the Washington, D.C., office of O’Melveny & Myers before going to Georgetown – where, among other things, he directs the institute’s moot court program, which provides advocates planning to argue at the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rehearse their arguments before a panel of lawyers and law professors familiar with the Court. Continue reading »
On July 12 at 12 p.m., the Hoover Institution will host a discussion entitled, “We the People: The Supreme Court’s duty to enforce the Constitution.” Speakers will include Randy Barnett and Adam White. More information and registration for this event, which will be held at the Hoover Institution in Washington, D.C., is available here.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of The Burger Court & the Rise of the Judicial Right (Simon & Schuster, 2016, pp. 450), by Michael J. Graetz and Linda A. Greenhouse.
Welcome, Michael and Linda, and thank you for taking the time to participate in this Question and Answer exchange for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your latest book.
There has been no conservative counterrevolution by the Burger Court.
— Justice Lewis Powell (1986)
The contrast between the Burger Court’s “policies and
purposes” and those of the Warren Court is stark.
— Michael Graetz & Linda Greenhouse (2016)
Question: How did your manuscript find its way to Simon & Schuster and to its famed executive editor Robert Bender?
Graetz & Greenhouse: Michael’s longtime agent Wendy Strothman, of the Strothman Agency in New York, shopped our proposal around, and of the offers we received, we preferred Simon & Schuster’s reactions to our ideas and plans for our book. The fact that Bob Bender would be our editor was, of course, a huge plus.