Briefly:

  • In The Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that when voting laws “are challenged in federal court, the outcome appears to turn on whether the judges or justices hearing the case were appointed by Republicans or Democrats.”
  • In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps discusses next Term’s double jeopardy case Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, in which the Court will decide “under what circumstances can the government retry for the underlying crime” “when a defendant is validly acquitted for a crime that involves another crime,”noting that “double jeopardy cases try to make sense out of the jury system—which often makes no sense.”
  • Jonathan Peters in The Columbia Journalism Review explores the First Amendment issues raised by a pending cert. petition in Armstrong v. Thompson, which asks the Court to decide “whether a law-enforcement officer, generally, is a public official” under New York Times v. Sullivan, noting that if the Court accepts the case, “the implications could be significant for criminal-justice reporting.”

  • In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that former Solicitor General Paul Clement’s announcement that his Bancroft firm would merge with Kirkland & Ellis “took the rarified U.S. Supreme Court bar by complete surprise Monday.”
  • At his Jost on Justice blog, Ken Jost reports on last week’s annual convention of LGBT journalists, where they discussed the “unfinished work for LGBT rights advocates” that remains after the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling and the prospects for Supreme Court review in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., the transgender bathroom case.
  • At Casetext, David Boyle remarks on the late conservative gadfly Phyllis Schlafly’s often “self-contradictory or self-defeating” views on the Supreme Court.  
  • The George Washington University Law School will host an event this afternoon at which Justice Elena Kagan “will discuss her experiences on the Court, as Solicitor General, and as a law professor and dean; her approaches to statutory and constitutional interpretation; and her views on legal education.

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.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 13, 2016, 9:27 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/tuesday-round-up-343/