Breaking News

Monday round-up


  • In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, noting that “the Supreme Court took its own sweet time” deciding whether to review the “dispute between a gay couple and a baker who refused to make them a wedding cake,” and that “[s]ome liberals wonder … whether a liberal justice might have tipped the scale,” on the theory that “[i]f the proliferation of cases around the country means Supreme Court intervention is inevitable, … better to take it while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is on the court.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines the effect of lower-court dissents on Supreme Court case grants and outcomes, focusing on whether “some judges’ dissents are given more weight than others.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro argues that to resolve Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell-site-location information from wireless carriers, the Supreme “Court should return to the text of the Fourth Amendment and recognize that data and digital communication are property that are protected by the papers and effects part of the Fourth Amendment.”
  • At TeenVogue, Emma Sarran Webster marks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 24th anniversary on the Supreme Court by looking at four of the justice’s opinions in major cases.
  • In an op-ed at Forbes, Nick Sibilla urges the court to review a case that asks “whether or not the government has to pay entrepreneurs if it destroys their businesses with eminent domain.”

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, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 14, 2017, 7:17 AM),