Breaking News

Wednesday round-up

In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that “one salvo” in the Democrats’ battle “to stanch the huge redistricting advantage Republicans grabbed after the 2010 census” “is coming to the Supreme Court when the justices reconvene in the autumn: Gill v Whitford, a case challenging Wisconsin’s electoral maps.” At Vox, Nicholas Stephanopolous explains how the challengers in Whitford have used “a quantitative measure of gerrymandering — the efficiency gap — … to analyze the Wisconsin plan in new and powerful ways.”


  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that Trump administration officials argued in a Hawaii district court last night that the “judge had no authority to expand the categories of foreign nationals and refugees who may enter the U.S. under a presidential executive order” “because the Supreme Court has granted review of the legality of [the] order – an issue it is schedule to take up in October, soon after opening its new term.”
  • Fix the Court has issued a report noting that in each branch of government, “officials in numerous positions of power are restricted in the amount of time they are legally or customarily allowed to serve,” and arguing that the Supreme Court should be made “part of this arrangement … – by convention, by statute or by amendment.”
  • In The New York Times, Peter Henning reports that “the Supreme Court will have two opportunities” —  in Carpenter v. United States, a case on next term’s docket, and United States v. Microsoft, a pending cert petition – “to help define the scope of digital privacy under a law enacted when cellphones and email hardly existed.”
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that “Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy group, has just announced that it will appeal to the Supreme Court during the summer on a case involving a woman who claims that she was discriminated against by her employer, a Savannah, GA, hospital, because she is a lesbian.”
  • At Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog, David Freeman Engstrom weighs in on California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, in which the court held that a securities-class-action member cannot file his or her own opt-out suit after the statute of repose has run, arguing that “[u]ndisciplined by clean legislative history or a felt need to grapple with complex empirics, the conservative majority instead simply read its own anti-litigation bent into the statute.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]

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, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 12, 2017, 7:14 AM),