Breaking News

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the court heard argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which asks whether a Minnesota law banning political apparel at polling places is facially overbroad under the First Amendment. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “the justices had a hard time drawing a line between ordinary protected speech and disruptive speech the state could legitimately want to restrict,” and that “[a]t times, they flashed frustration with the lawyers, who also struggled to identify a clean, clear distinction.” Additional coverage comes from Bill Mears at Fox News, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Nina Totenberg at NPR, Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Andrew Chung at Reuters, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, and Richard Wolf for USA Today. Commentary on the argument comes from Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and Derek Muller at Excess of Democracy. Ilya Shapiro also weighs in on the case in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.

At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy reports on Tuesday’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, in which the court held that immigration-law provisions do not give detained aliens a right to periodic bond hearings. Additional coverage comes from Bill Mears at Fox News, who reports that “[t]he 5-3 decision comes as the Trump administration looks to shore up rules governing those seeking permanent entry into the country.” The Young Turks offers a video commentary on the decision.

For this blog, Heidi Kitrosser analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, in which the justices will decide whether the existence of probable cause defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim. For Tribune News Service (via Governing), Jane Musgrave reports that although Chief Justice John “Roberts and other justices voiced dismay at the way Riviera officials dealt with one of its harshest critics, some also voiced reluctance to hamstring police officers who too often have to deal with unruly people who spew constitutionally-protected invectives — such as calling cops ‘pigs’ — as part of a lawful arrest.”


  • For this blog, Ronald Mann analyzes the court’s opinion this week in Patchak v. Zinke, in which a divided court affirmed a lower-court decision that dismissed a lawsuit in response to a congressional statute.
  • At Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Transactions Blog, N. Peter Rasmussen looks at two Supreme Court cases involving the Security and Exchange Commission’s enforcement powers, Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission and Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
  • At Techdirt, Tim Cushing looks at this week’s argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp., which asks whether the Stored Communications Act allows the government to gain access from email providers to data that is stored overseas; he concludes that “[a] ruling for the status quo won’t substantially increase the number of scofflaws stashing communications on foreign servers, but a ruling against it would definitely damage international relationships, if not numerous internet-based communication platforms.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.]
  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[t]he Trump Administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to turn down a request that it move swiftly to review a second case testing the White House order limiting immigration from six Muslim-majority nations.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse wonders how, during the oral argument in Janus v. AFSCME, in which the justices will decide whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment, “Justices Alito and Kennedy … could have permitted their intense dislike of organized labor to strip them of judicious inhibition and drive them to act as advocates and even something close to bullies.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]

 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 (Mar. 1, 2018, 7:30 AM),