Tuesday round-up
Saturday’s pre-dawn order in the Texas voter identification case continues to garner coverage and commentary. In the Supreme Court Brief, Tony Mauro reports on recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attributing the Court’s “recent spate of unexplained emergency orders” – including the order allowing Texas to implement its voter ID law over her dissent — to “tremendous time pressure.” And at his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen queries whether Ginsburg’s dissent misstates what kinds of identification Texas officials will accept.
Briefly:
- Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (video, occasional profanity) reenacts the oral argument in Holt v. Hobbs, a Muslim inmate’s challenge to a prison policy that prohibits him from growing a beard for religious reasons, with puppies.
- At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses whether Justices should “time their retirements based on their expected successor and, if so, should they publicly explain that intention?”
- At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman responds to the reliance by Arizona’s attorney general on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 — which imposes sanctions on attorneys who file briefs or motions containing frivolous arguments or who do so for the purpose of delay – to justify his decision to drop the state’s defense of its ban on same-sex marriage.
- At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman weighs in on Warger v. Shauers, in which the Court is considering whether federal evidentiary rules allow a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
- At the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen previews Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, in which the Court will consider whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
- In the Federalist, Ilya Shapiro analyzes North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC and concludes that the case “indicates what happens when courts—both federal and state—are too deferential to legislatures—both federal and state—regarding economic regulations. All too often, getting the judiciary to enforce constitutional limits on government and protect individual liberty has been like pulling teeth.”
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the 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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY