Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

  • At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy looks at Washington v. United States, “a long-running dispute about salmon fishing, Indian treaty rights, and culverts in the state of Washington” that will be argued next week.
  • For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that as Justice Neil Gorsuch reaches his one-year anniversary on the Supreme Court bench today, in a number of “ways — from his core legal philosophy to his supreme self-confidence — he is very much like his predecessor on the court,” Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro notes that unlike some other federal courts of appeals, the Supreme Court “discounts the votes and opinions of justices upon death,” because “if a justice can make changes in an opinion up to the time it is issued, a justice’s death before then makes the opinion an unfinished product not suitable for being handed down.”
  • At The Hill, Josh Delk reports that “[a] group of former prosecutors and Justice Department officials is now petitioning the Supreme Court to review the years-old murder conviction of an intellectually disabled teen,” in Williams v. Louisiana.

  • At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Benisek v. Lamone, a partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a congressional district in Maryland, and China Agritech v. Resh, which asks whether the rule tolling the statute of limitations for individual actions filed after a failed class action also applies to subsequent class actions. [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 China Agritech.]
  • At SSRN, Bryan Lammon explains why United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, which involves limits on appellate jurisdiction and mootness in the context of a challenge to a federal court district-wide policy of shackling defendants for most nonjury proceedings, “should be easy,” noting that “[i]t’s what I call a “one-shot” interlocutory appeal—it presents a relatively abstract issue of law that, once resolved, will resolve the issue for all litigants and will not require any future appeals on case-specific applications of the law”; he argues that “a rule of procedure allowing discretionary appeals from any district court decision might avoid turning easy cases like Sanchez-Gomez into hard ones.”

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, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 10, 2018, 6:53 AM),