Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston lays out the timeline and procedures by which the challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry into the United States of foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries could make its way before the Supreme Court. In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “the president’s lawyers are likely to ask the high court this week to overturn the 4th Circuit opinion” that left in place a lower court order blocking implementation of the travel ban; he observes that it “is hardly clear how the Supreme Court will react to a case that mixes profound questions about the president’s power to protect the country, Congress’s grant of authority to the executive branch to make immigration decisions and the Constitution’s admonition that government not single out one religion for disparagement.”


  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, Bill Burgess looks at SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee, which involves “inter partes” review of patents before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, a case the court added this week to its docket for next term, observing that “SAS could turn out to be a big deal in administrative law, or it could be just another patent case,” but that either way, “SAS’s petition has already shown that taking shots at Chevron may be one way to get the Supreme Court’s attention.”
  • Counting to 5 (podcast) looks at two cases that “disappeared from the Court’s docket without oral argument or a written opinion” earlier this term.
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger comments on the execution last week of Alabama death-row inmate Thomas Arthur, who had “filed a last-minute petition in the U.S. Supreme Court,” after “dodging seven prior execution dates.”
  • At Aeon, Tonja Jacobi and Dylan Schweers explain that their “new research on interruptions among justices during Supreme Court oral arguments indicates that women still do not have an equal opportunity to be heard in the highest court in the land.”
  • At Casetext, David Boyle explores the much-rumored possibility that Justice Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement, noting that “taking a more cautious road by staying on for just a few more years, and then deciding whether to retire, is one nuanced and practical alternative for Kennedy.”
  • Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog features a Q and A with “voting rights and redistricting expert Professor Nate Persily” on last week’s decision in Cooper v. Harris, in which the justices upheld a lower court’s ruling that North Carolina relied too heavily on race in drawing the boundaries of two congressional districts.
  • The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket offers analyses of several recent Supreme Court decisions: arbitration case Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, here; patent-venue case TC Heartland LLP v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLP, here; and racial-gerrymandering case Cooper v. Harris, here.

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]

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 30, 2017, 6:35 AM),