Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, which involves the ability of a third-party class-action defendant to remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Basem Besada and Isaac Idicula have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, and Subscript Law provides a graphic explainer. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.] This morning’s second argument is in Azar v. Allina Health Services, which asks whether the Department of Health and Human Services was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before altering its Medicare hospital-reimbursement formula. This blog’s preview came from Abbe Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell. Lauren Devendorf and Tyler Schmitt preview the case for Cornell. Another look comes from Karen Lovitch at The National Law Review.

The court issued additional orders yesterday morning from its conference last Friday. The justices did not add any merits cases to their docket, nor did they act on several high-profile petitions; they asked the federal government for its views in three cases, two of which raise the same issue. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the court also “rejected an unusual challenge to Matthew Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general.” Additional coverage of yesterday’s orders comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in Michaels v. Whitaker.]

In an op-ed for Forbes, Nick Sibilla writes that in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing that will be argued tomorrow, the court “may soon decide whether states can pass laws that do little more than protect in-state businesses from outside competitors in the alcohol industry.” At the Alcohol Law Review, Paul Pisano urges the court to “avoid repeating the mistakes of 1919 and honor the state roles in regulating alcohol by giving the broadest reading to the 21st Amendment.”


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 (Jan. 15, 2019, 6:38 AM),