WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, March 3

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 Wednesday morning read:

• Supreme Court Seems Ready to Sustain Arizona Voting Limits (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court Sends Mixed Signals in Voting Rights Case (Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal)
• John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• The Voting Rights Act had a surprisingly good day at the Supreme Court (Ian Millhiser, Vox)
• Arizona in spotlight: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in election laws, Voting Rights Act case (Andrew Oxford, Arizona Republic)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, March 2

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 Tuesday morning read:

• High Noon for the Future of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Supreme Court to again consider federal protections for minority voters (Robert Barnes, The Washington Post)
• Supreme Court skeptical about patent judge appointments (Jessica Gresko, Associated Press)
• SCOTUS Won’t Explain Why It Keeps Blocking COVID Restrictions (Dahlia Lithwick & Mark Joseph Stern, Slate)
• A Very Exclusive Club: Former-SGs’ Cert Success (Adam Feldman, The Juris Lab)

SCOTUS News

Court will review Puerto Rico’s ineligibility for federal benefits program

The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justices added two cases, both involving benefits through the Social Security Administration, to their merits docket for next term.

The first case, United States v. Vaello-Madero, is a major challenge to the exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor people who are older or disabled. The plaintiff in the case, Jose Luis Vaello-Madero, received SSI benefits while he was living in New York, but the benefits stopped when officials learned that he had moved to Puerto Rico to care for his wife, who had her own health problems. The United States later went to court to try to recover benefits paid to Vaello-Madero after he moved to Puerto Rico. Vaello-Madero countered that the omission of Puerto Rico residents from the program violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, March 1

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 Monday morning read:

• Supreme Court Sides With California Churches on Covid-19 Restrictions (Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal)
• ‘Death Squad’ That Tossed 2,000 Patents Challenged at High Court (Greg Stohr & Susan Decker, Bloomberg)
• A Supreme Court Test for What’s Left of the Voting Rights Act (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Voting rights cases before SCOTUS could have profound effects on future elections (Erwin Chemerinsky, ABA Journal)
• Interview with Justice Neil Gorsuch (Margaret Hoover, Firing Line)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Court clears way for indoor worship services in northern California

In the latest of a line of challenges to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court ordered a California county to allow churches to hold indoor worship services. In a brief order on Friday night, the justices granted a request to block county public health restrictions imposed in light of the pandemic while the restrictions are being challenged in federal court.

The request was filed by a group of churches in Santa Clara County, challenging the enforcement of a county order barring indoor worship services. The churches came to the Supreme Court on Feb. 17, asking the justices to allow them to hold services inside as soon as possible. They argued that the county’s order discriminates against houses of worship by treating other activities, including grocery stores and airports, more favorably. The churches pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in two cases – one lifting New York’s COVID-related limits on attendance at worship services and the other granting requests by southern California churches to resume indoor worship services – to support their contention that the Santa Clara County order must also fall.