Wednesday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court dismissed the second of the two challenges to President Donald Trump’s March 6 entry ban, Trump v. Hawaii, vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss it as moot. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Lydia Wheeler at The Hill, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, and Josh Gerstein at Politico, who reports that the court’s “escape from the travel ban issues could be short-lived because the same two judges who blocked the order Trump issued in March granted injunctions last week against the key portions of a revised travel ban policy the president issued last month.” Kent Scheidegger comments on the order at Crime and Consequences.
Briefly:
- Subscript offers a graphic explainer for U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, in which the court will consider the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status in a bankruptcy proceeding.
- At ACSBlog, Emily Olson-Gault weighs in on Ayestas v. Davis, which involves the standards for funding an investigation establishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a capital case, arguing that “[t]he courts essentially required [Ayestas] to provide, in advance, the very proof that the funding was needed to obtain.”
- For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, noting that court-watchers say “the case starkly presents two competing narratives, both of which will likely aim at the center of the court: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.”
- At the Brennan Center for Justice, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy stresses the importance of Gill v. Whitford, in which the justices will decide whether Wisconsin’s electoral maps are the product of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, “because Gill could set the standards and rules for how district lines are drawn in the future.”
- For the UC Davis Law Review Online, John Mills discusses the Arizona capital-sentencing statute at issue in the pending cert petition in Hidalgo v. Arizona.
- At the Associated Press, Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman report on the lawsuit by Fix the Court seeking information “about the justices’ protection when they leave Washington.”
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] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY