Breaking News

Thursday round-up

Court-watchers are looking ahead to October Term 2017’s first oral arguments, which begin next Monday. At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe reports that the court has released the hearing list for the first argument session, which “contains a critical mass of veteran Supreme Court litigators,” noting that “women are relatively few and far between on the hearing list,” occupying only three of the 24 October argument slots. At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro talks to the advocates in two immigration cases that were argued last term and rescheduled for next week about the challenges of rearguing a case. In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh takes a broader look at the upcoming term, noting that “it will be the first full term for [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, who asserted himself quickly during his partial tenure [in OT 2016].”

In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed in an interview Tuesday night that sexism was a ‘major, major factor’ in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump last November.” Additional coverage of Ginsburg’s remarks comes from CBS News, and the full video of the interview is here.


  • Counting to 5 (podcast) features a discussion with an attorney for the employees in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, one of three consolidated cases in which the court will decide whether employment agreements that ban collective resolution of workplace disputes violate federal employment laws.
  • At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a “high-profile legal fight involving a conservative Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple[,] promises to showcase the pivotal role Justice Anthony Kennedy will play on the U.S. Supreme Court during its new term that begins next week.”
  • For The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that close to 30 states have weighed in on Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether Ohio’s voter-roll-maintenance process violates the National Voter Registration Act, with “red states” and “blue states” taking opposite sides on the issue in their amicus briefs.
  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the Supreme Court yesterday “officially adopted a few rule changes effective November 13” that “mainly related to electronic filing of documents.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman looks at the petitions the justice considered at this week’s “long conference” “that will in all likelihood at least minimally garner serious review” because they “either have an associated amicus brief, at least one elite attorney, or both.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the court to grant a cert petition “challenging the lower-court holding that statutory conflict triggers Chevron deference (named after the 1984 Supreme Court case that created the doctrine).”
  • In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that Justice Neil Gorsuch has faced criticism for headlining conservative functions, engagements that “Gorsuch’s detractors see … as hand-delivered thank-you notes, undermining attempts to present himself as an independent-minded justice.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reminds readers that “[j]ust because a case is moot, as [the entry-ban case] appears to be, doesn’t mean that nothing happened.”

We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] Thank you!

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 28, 2017, 7:05 AM),