Thursday round-up
on Sep 15, 2016 at 8:42 am
Briefly:
- In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday chided law firms for not taking more steps to improve the balance between home and work for lawyers with young children.”
- Georgetown University Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute has released its preview of the Court’s argument docket for October Term 2016.
- In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro remembers the late Frank Wagner, long-time “reporter of decisions” at the Supreme Court, who “put the justices’ decisions into publishable form for more than 23 years and in 2000 helped to put them online.”
- In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro discusses how the death of Justice Scalia has slowed the Court’s “pro-business momentum” in business-related areas of the law, such as arbitration and class actions, and how his replacement could alter the legal landscape in those areas.
- In Cato at Liberty, Trevor Burrus and David McDonald argue that the Court should grant review in Foster v. Vilsack, which involves the Department of Agriculture’s interpretation of what constitutes a protected wetland, noting that the case offers the Court an opportunity to “make it clear to administrative agencies that they cannot avoid judicial review by refusing to promulgate clear, unambiguous regulations.”
- In an online essay at The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Zachary Gubler looks at Salman v. United States, a “once-in-a-decade insider trading case” that, he argues, presents “a valuable opportunity to clear the underbrush that has accumulated” in American insider trading law.
- Eric Segall contends in The Daily Beast that, contrary to much recent hand-wringing by “legal pundits and academic Court watchers” about the ills of an evenly divided eight-member Court, “there are many advantages to such a Court, and we might all be better off if both political parties in the Senate made a commitment to keep this balance permanent.”
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses developments since the Court essentially asked the parties to reach a compromise in last Term’s birth control case, Zubik v. Burwell, arguing that “by punting, stalling for time, taking a breather — whatever the justices thought they were doing back in May — the court gave the administration a chance to hit reset, a chance it was smart enough to take by asking its opponents finally to put their cards on the table and by inviting ordinary people to tell the world why the case matters.”
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.
