Breaking News

Monday round-up

Commentary and coverage focus on the Supreme Court’s decision last week to review New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, in which the justices will consider whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside city limits violates the Constitution. In an op-ed for Los Angeles Times, James Phillips and John Yoo argue that “[t]o ensure the equal treatment of constitutional rights, the court should establish a test fully rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Amy Davidson Sorkin of The New Yorker suggests that in this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh may “begin building what promises to be a disastrous pro-gun legacy.” At his eponymous blog, Kenneth Jost looks at Kavanaugh’s “presumed stance” in this case and in recent cases reinstating the administration’s policy on transgender service members. In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and John-Michael Seibler talk about the Second Amendment grant and “chat with appellate litigator extraordinaire John Bursch about the future of religious liberty and abortion at SCOTUS.”


  • At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh covers a debate at the American Enterprise Institute about a federal constitutional right to education and whether the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, holding that there is no such fundamental constitutional right, was wrongly decided.
  • Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal (registration or subscription required) writes that “Justice Samuel Alito Jr., perhaps the Supreme Court’s most reliable conservative, and the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, one of the court’s liberal lions, would seem to be polar opposites as judges. But as an Alito opinion this week showed, they may have found some common ground on religious freedom.”
  • For The Intercept, David Dayen looks at Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, in which the court will decide whether the 21st Amendment empowers states to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time; if it does not, he writes, “state alcohol laws will have little or no force, making it easier for retail giants to dominate the sector and potentially roll back health and safety measures on alcohol in a drive for profit.”
  • In the Mississippi Business Journal, Ben Williams provides a “two-tiered assessment” of President Donald Trump’s judicial confirmations at the end of his first two years in office.
  • Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., in which the court held that the sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2019, 10:17 AM),