Wednesday round-up

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that the Trump administration yesterday asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on a lower-court ruling that bars enforcement of a new policy prohibiting immigrants who enter the country illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border from requesting asylum. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Andrew Chung at Reuters, Bob Egelko at the San Francisco Chronicle, Michael Burke at The Hill, Gregg Re at Fox News, and Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed.News.

At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Melanie Israel lament that “[t]he Supreme Court on Monday missed an opportunity to bring clarity to an area of the law about which the lower courts are divided: Whether states can prevent Medicaid funds from going to pay for non-abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics.” At People for the American Way, Eliot Mincberg warns against being “fooled into thinking that” Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s decision not to join three of his conservative colleagues in voting to review two cases raising this issue, in which the lower courts blocked efforts by states to strip Planned Parenthood of its Medicaid funding, “means that Kavanaugh has abandoned his anti-reproductive choice views or his interest in overturning important Court precedents.” Additional commentary comes from Jessica Mason Pieklo at Rewire.News.

Briefly:

• At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court’s reluctance to take up new cases on volatile social issues is putting it on a collision course with President Donald Trump, whose Justice Department is trying to rush such disputes through the appeals system to get them before the nine justices as quickly as possible.”
• At The Regulatory Review, Daniel Walters weighs in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices have been asked to overrule Auer v. Robbins, which instructs courts generally to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, arguing that “if the Court proceeds to overrule Auer, it will be acting on the basis of a wildly speculative hunch that is contradicted by the best evidence available.”

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!