on Jun 27, 2017 at 7:22 am
Yesterday, on their last day on the bench for October Term 2016, the justices agreed to review two challenges to the Trump administration’s entry ban in October and partially lifted the injunctions against enforcement of the ban. Coverage comes from Matt Ford in The Atlantic, Nina Totenberg at NPR (audio), David Savage in the Los Angeles Times, Jordan Fabian at The Hill, Politico, Gary Gately at Talk Media News, and Evan Bush in The Seattle Times. At The Washington Post, Darla Cameron and Kim Soffen analyze the court’s ruling, as does Steven Mazie in The Economist. In The New York Times, Michael Shear answers a variety of questions about today’s ruling, and Jayashri Srikantiah does the same for Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog. Bloomberg has an audio interview discussing the ruling. Commentary comes from Garrett Epps in The Atlantic, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Aaron Blake in The Washington Post, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Jack Goldsmith at Lawfare, Ryan Lockman at Lock Law Blog, Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Richard Primus at Politico Magazine, Michael Bobelian at Forbes, Adam Cox at Just Security, Shoba Wadhia at the ACS Blog, Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog, Josh Blackman at his eponymous blog, and Ken Jost at Jost on Justice.
The court also issued opinions in four argued cases. In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the justices ruled that a state cannot deny a church a public benefit – here, improvements to a playground – because of the church’s religious status. Mark Walsh covers the decision for Education Week’s School Law Blog. Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Emma Green in The Atlantic, Scott Bomboy at Constitution Daily, Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed, Gary Gately at Talk Media News, and Tony Mauro in The National Law Journal. Commentary comes from Eric Segall at Dorf on Law, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Brian Miller at Forbes, Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Michael McShane at the Show-Me Institute, Lyman Stone at Vox, Thomas Berg at Mirror of Justice,
In Davila v. Davis, the justices held that ineffective postconviction counsel does not excuse procedural default of a claim that a prior appellate lawyer was ineffective. Commentary comes from David Alan Sklansky at Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate Blog.
The justices held in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities that a securities-class-action member cannot file his or her own opt-out suit after the statute of repose has run. Ronald Mann has this blog’s opinion analysis. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.] Tony Mauro covers the ruling for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), as does Alison Frankel at Reuters. Commentary comes from Joshua Yount at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog and from Brian Wolfman at Public Citizen’s Consumer Law and Policy Blog.
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the justices vacated a ruling against the plaintiffs in a cross-border shooting case and remanded the case for the lower court to reconsider in light of a ruling last week that limited the ability to sue federal officials for damages under the Constitution. Amy Howe analyzes the ruling for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters and Gary Gately at Talk Media News. Commentary comes from Ryan Lockman at Lock Law Blog.
The justices also ordered reargument in two immigration cases, Jennings v. Rodriguez, involving immigrant detention, and Sessions v. Dimaya, which involves the constitutionality of a criminal-removal provision in the immigration laws. Kevin Johnson discusses these developments for this blog.
Yesterday’s orders list also featured some notable developments, which Amy Howe covers for this blog here and here. In Pavan v. Smith, the justices summarily ordered Arkansas to provide names of same-sex partners on birth certificates. The court also agreed to review a case that involves the right of private parties to deny services to same-sex couples, particularly in industries involving expression. Coverage comes from David Savage in the Los Angeles Times, Tony Mauro in The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), and Gary Gately at Talk Media News. Commentary comes from Walter Olson at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg,
Another new case for next term involves the whistleblower provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law. Greg Stohr covers the grant for Bloomberg, as does Sarah Lynch at Reuters. Commentary comes from Asher Steinberg at The Narrowest Grounds. And the court declined to to review a case involving right to carry guns outside the home. Coverage comes from David Savage in the Los Angeles Times and Gary Gately at Talk Media News.
Coverage of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s debut this term comes from Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung at Reuters and from Ariane de Vogue at CNN, while commentary comes from Oliver Roeder and Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight, Ashley Dejean at Mother Jones, Scott Lemieux at Democracy, Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, and Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog.
Commentary on Murr v. Wisconsin, last week’s regulatory-takings decision, comes from Ilya Somin at The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Jonathan Wood at FREEcology, Jeffrey Mandell at StaffordRosenbaum’s Appellate Practice blog, and Seth Jaffe at Foley Hoag’s Law and the Environment blog.
Analysis of the term comes from Adam Winkler in The Washington Post. In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro looks at this term’s key business cases. At his eponymous blog, John Q. Barrett compares yesterday’s final opinion day with one in 1950, when the justices handed down decisions in 17 cases.
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.