on Jul 21, 2017 at 7:06 am
In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that the Supreme Court’s entry-ban ruling on Wednesday was “a win for family members in Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen seeking visas to visit relatives in America,” but “a loss for resettlement organisations that have already expended time, resources and energy planning for 24,000 aspiring refugees seeking shelter in America,” and that the court’s “above-the-fray perspective is the handiwork of a six-justice majority apparently seeking to dampen perceptions of the court’s politicisation.” At Talk Media News, Gary Gately reports that, according to advocates for refugees, the ruling “will endanger the lives of thousands of desperate people fleeing war, hunger, poverty and persecution.” At the ImmigrationProf Blog, Peter Margulies observes that “the Court left the door open to revisit its order once the Ninth Circuit rules on the government’s appeal of Judge Watson’s injunction,” and hopes “that the Ninth Circuit will uphold the district court on exempting refugee assurances from the EO, and the Supreme Court will then permit Judge Watson’s entire order to go into effect.”
- At Above the Law, David Lat offers an “updated list of [Supreme Court] clerk hires for October Term 2018.”
- The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, once dubbed ‘disgraceful’ by President Donald Trump, said on Thursday that criticism from politicians won’t dissuade judges from doing their jobs.”
- At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the Supreme Court to review a challenge to a “Maryland statute [that] bars felons from owning firearms, with no exception for someone whose rights had been restored,” arguing that a “decade-old, non-violent felony should not act as a scarlet letter, preventing a person from challenging a statute in court.”
- In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin serves up a smorgasbord of food puns while reporting on the operation of the Supreme Court’s cafeteria, noting that its new overseer, Justice Neil Gorsuch, “avoided signaling his culinary philosophy during confirmation hearings in April.”
- At Reason’s Hit and Run blog, Damon Root observes that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent embrace of civil asset forfeiture puts Sessions “on a collision course with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,” who recently stated in a statement respecting the denial of certiorari that the “legal justifications offered in defense of civil asset forfeiture … cannot be squared with the text of the Constitution.”
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.