WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, May 26

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Supreme Court Sharply Limits the EPA’s Ability to Protect Wetlands (Emma Ricketts, Inside Climate News)
• How Supreme Court’s EPA ruling will affect U.S. wetlands, clean water (Timothy Puko & Robert Barnes, The Washington Post)
• How Warhol Turned the Supreme Court Justices Into Art Critics (Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker)
• In Capitols and Courthouses, No End to National Divide Over Gun Policy (Shaila Dewan, The New York Times)
• Abortion Restrictions Pass Across U.S. as Republicans Overcome Divisions (Laura Kusisto & Jennifer Calfas, The Wall Street Journal)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, May 25

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Biden administration backs Google in song lyrics case at Supreme Court (Blake Brittain, Reuters)
• The Supreme Court gift list: Paintings, guns, and a sculpture of a hand (James Romoser, Politico)
• There’s a Clear Model for How the Court Could Solve Its Ethics Problem (Norm Ornstein, Slate)
• Kagan Takes Small But Real Step Toward High Court Transparency (Philip Allen Lacovara, Bloomberg Law)
• Neil Gorsuch Has Given Himself Away (Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times) 

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, May 24

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Chief Justice Roberts says building a fence around Supreme Court was the ‘hardest decision’ of his tenure (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Supreme Court approval rating declines amid controversy over ethics and transparency: Marquette poll (Devan Cole, CNN)
• Who’s who in the Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases (Gabriella Borter, Reuters)
• Should Americans worry about the Supreme Court’s ‘shadow’ docket? This expert says ‘yes.’ (John Fritze, USA Today
• US Says Justices Should Skip on Charter School Skirt Rule Case (Patrick Dorrian, Bloomberg Law)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, May 23

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• US Supreme Court’s Andy Warhol decision keeps ‘fair use’ questions alive (Blake Brittain, Reuters)
• Top Court’s Pork-Producer Ruling Could Affect Abortion-Pill Suit (Mary Anne Pazanowski, Bloomberg Law)
• What It’s Like After the Supreme Court Rules Your Child’s Death Doesn’t Count (Shirin Ali, Slate)
• DeSantis envisions shaping ‘7-2 conservative majority’ on Supreme Court (Hannah Knowles, The Washington Post)
• How a Supreme Court decision went from red to blue in less than 2 decades (Alan Hurst, Deseret News)

SCOTUS NEWS

Justices rule on challenge to FDIC order

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a summary reversal – that is, a decision on the merits, but without additional briefing or oral argument – in a challenge to an order that would bar the former CEO of a Michigan community bank from ever working in the banking industry again. The justices’ ruling in Calcutt v. FDIC was the highlight of a list of orders from their private conference on Thursday, May 18. The court did not add any new cases to its merits docket for the 2023-24 term.

The seven-page unsigned opinion came in a challenge by Harry Calcutt, the former head of Northwestern Bank, to an order by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that would bar him from working in the banking industry for life. After a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the order, Calcutt came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in. Although the court of appeals agreed that the FDIC had made legal mistakes in concluding that the order was warranted, he noted, it affirmed the order anyway, reasoning that there was still enough evidence to support the FDIC’s findings. But under the Supreme Court’s decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery, Calcutt contended, the court of appeals should have instead sent his case back to the FDIC for it to apply the correct legal standard to the facts.