Breaking News

Tuesday round-up

On Friday, the Supreme Court removed Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, from the February argument calendar. Amy Howe has this blog’s updated coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the court “could reschedule the showdown for later this term to consider a trial judge’s ruling this week barring the Commerce Department from adding the question.” Additional coverage comes from Bill Mears at Fox News and Ariane de Vogue at CNN. Idrees Kahloon and Steven Mazie take a closer look at the trial court’s decision at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog.


  • At First Mondays, Dan Epps and Leah Litman “catch you up on the court’s latest opinions; review the big batch of cert. grants, as well as the high-profile petitions the court hasn’t (yet) granted; and play a few fun clips from last week’s arguments.”
  • At The Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Kathy Hoekstra recounts attending last week’s reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, with Rose Knick, the plaintiff in the takings case.
  • At SCOTUS OA, Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag tell the story of how Supreme Court oral argument transcripts and audio came to be readily available, which, they observe, reflects “the sometimes-odd interaction between the very staid institution of the Supreme Court and quickly changing technology.”
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman suggests that last week’s oral argument in 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, “showed how confused the Justices get about Civ Pro.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
  • At The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause, and patent case Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.

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. 22, 2019, 6:50 AM),