Breaking News

Friday round-up

At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that in its first merits filing in the Supreme Court on the entry-ban cases, “[t]he Trump Administration, insisting that the presidential order limiting entry to the U.S. of foreign nationals from Mideast nations ‘is not a so-called “Muslim ban,”’ urged the Supreme Court on Thursday evening to throw [the cases] out without a decision.” Additional coverage of the government’s filing comes from Mica Rosenberg at Reuters and Richard Wolf at USA Today.


  • At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that a pending cert petition that asks whether “cops in states that allow concealed carry [can] search you just because they think you’re armed” “pits a multi-time felon, five Republican state attorneys general, and a coalition of 10 conservative and gun rights groups against the Republican and vocally pro-gun-rights Trump administration” and “reveals deep tensions between gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights.”

  • At Minnesota Lawyer, Barbara Jones reports on a pending cert petition stemming from a challenge to Minnesota’s civil-commitment program for sex offenders; the case asks what “standard of review … should apply to substantive due process claims brought by the patients.”
  • At The Narrowest Grounds, Asher Steinberg argues that the court’s decision this term in National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, which limited the president’s power to fill executive-branch vacancies, exhibits “confusion about the role legislative history has to play in textualist interpretation.”
  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Tim Schultz draws a parallel between two high-profile cases on next term’s docket, the entry-ban case and the case of the custom-cake baker who refused to supply a cake for a same-sex wedding, arguing that both cases “will challenge our commitment to the First Amendment and our willingness to support its protections for those with whom we deeply disagree.”
  • At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro looks at the ethical concerns that may arise when prominent Supreme Court advocates, believing that “if justices or their clerks see ‘big name’ lawyers on the brief, they may think that in fact the case is important, will be well-argued, and should be granted review—a result that would be against the client’s interest,” “ghostwrite” briefs in opposition to certiorari.

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, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 11, 2017, 7:19 AM),