Upcoming Event

Harvard FedSoc chapter to host debate on court packing

On Tuesday, April 20, at 12 p.m. EDT, the Harvard Law School chapter of the Federalist Society will host a debate, entitled “Breaking the Court or Saving Democracy? A Debate on Court Packing,” between two scholars on the merits of proposals to add seats to the Supreme Court. Professor Michael Klarman of Harvard Law will advocate in favor of court packing, and Dan McLaughlin of the National Review will advocate against. Professor Theodore Rave of the University of Houston Law Center will moderate.

Click here to register.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, April 16

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Friday morning read:

• The Supreme Court Is Making New Law in the Shadows (Stephen Vladeck, The New York Times)
• Don’t be fooled: The Supreme Court isn’t expanding anytime soon (Chris Cillizza, CNN)
• Biden administration asks Supreme Court not to hear challenge to all-male military draft (Robert Barnes, The Washington Post)
• Justice Breyer says looking to international law can help the court evaluate US cases (Mark Walsh, ABA Journal)
• In Memoriam: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Columbia Law Review)

SCOTUS NEWS

Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress

Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from nine to 13, but party leaders in both the House and Senate immediately threw cold water on the plan.

Expanding the size of the court – once a fringe idea – has become a rallying cry for many liberal Democrats who remain angry about how Republicans handled Supreme Court nominations in 2016 and 2020. Under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senate refused to give a confirmation hearing to Merrick Garland in the final year of the Obama presidency but, four years later, rushed to confirm Amy Coney Barrett weeks before the November election.

Upcoming Event

Harvard Law Review panel on Supreme Court journalism

On Thursday, April 15, at 7:30 p.m. EDT, the Harvard Law Review and Harvard Law School chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society will host a discussion with a number of Supreme Court commentators from news outlets, podcasts, Twitter and more, on their work covering the court and major news of the current term. The panel will feature Josie Duffy Rice of The Appeal, Katie Barlow of SCOTUSblog, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch and Steven Mazie of The Economist, and will be moderated by Professor Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law.

Click here for more info and to register.

SCOTUS Focus

Tandon steals Fulton’s thunder: The most important free exercise decision since 1990

On Feb. 24, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case in which the petitioners and several amici are asking the Court to either (1) overrule Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 decision holding that the free exercise clause does not provide a right to religious exemptions from general laws, or (2) sharply limit the impact of Smith by interpreting it as guaranteeing a “most favored nation” status for religious exemption claims. Under the latter theory, even if a law broadly covers both secular and religious conduct, it would not be considered “neutral and generally applicable” for purposes of Smith if it contains any exemptions that are deemed “comparable” to the requested religious exemption. Instead, the theory posits, the existence of any such exemptions for “favored” activity triggers a presumptive right to a religious exemption that the government can only deny if it satisfies strict scrutiny.