Tuesday round-up
Last night the federal government asked the Supreme Court to put on hold a lower-court order requiring the release from immigration custody of a pregnant teenager so that she can obtain an abortion. 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. At Balkinization, Marty Lederman discusses the government’s arguments in the case.
Briefly:
- For The Washington Post, Ashley Parker and others report that although “[f]or nearly eight months, President Trump has boasted that appointing Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court ranks high among his signature achievements, … earlier this year, Trump talked about rescinding Gorsuch’s nomination, … after his Supreme Court pick was critical of the president’s escalating attacks on the federal judiciary in private meetings with legislators.”
- At Law.com (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “Table for 9,” a new book that recounts the tradition “of justices eating together regularly” “is worth a read, as much for the glimpses it gives into the lives of the justices as the recipes that are included.”
- At the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Soronen discusses the recent cert grant in Benisek v. Lamone, a partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a congressional district in Maryland.
- Also at the Knowledge Center, Soronen looks at Sveen v. Melin, in which the justices will consider “whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the Contracts Clause.”
- In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Henry Miller urges the court to review Weyerhaeuser United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in which “the government seeks to seize control of land it does not own, to protect an endangered species of frog that does not live there, force private landowners to tear down a healthy native forest, and install at landowner expense a new forest the landowner does not want.”
- The World and Everything In It features a discussion of the factual background and legal issues in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting.
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