Friday round-up

As Amy Howe reports for this blog, the court issued revisions to its rules yesterday that reduce the word limits for merits briefs and require the parties to a case before the Supreme Court to identify any lower-court cases that are directly related to the Supreme Court proceedings. At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that practitioners welcomed the latter changes, which are intended to reduce missed conflicts, where the justices recognize late in proceedings that there are grounds for recusal.

This blogs analysis of Tuesdays argument in North Carolina Dept of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, which asks whether a trust beneficiarys residence is sufficient under the due process clause for a state to assert tax jurisdiction over trust income, comes from Erin Scharff. Howard Wasserman has this blogs analysis of Wednesdays oral argument in McDonough v. Smith, in which the court considered when the statute of limitations begins to run for federal civil rights claims based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Briefly:

• At The George Washington Law Reviews On the Docket blog, John Bessler argues that Justice Neil Gorsuchs majority opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe, in which the court rejected a death-row inmates argument that, because he suffers from a rare medical condition, executing him by lethal injection would be so painful that it would violate the constitutions ban on cruel and unusual punishment, offers a torturous, unprincipled reading of the Eighth Amendment.[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.]
• In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundations SCOTUS 101 podcast, Kevin Daley from the Daily Caller joins Elizabeth Slattery to dispel an RBG conspiracy theory and break down a scandalous Supreme Court oral argument.
• At the Seventh-day Adventist Churchs Stories & Commentaries blog, Todd McFarland outlines several encouraging developments related to the cert petition in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., which asks exactly how much employers must do under federal law to accommodate an employees religious practices.
• At Rewire.News Boom! Lawyered podcast, Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo discuss the case of Jamal Knox, a young rapper who was convicted for terroristic threats and witness intimidation based on the lyrics of his music, whose cert petition the justices denied on Monday.

We relyon 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 youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotus-blog.vipdev.lndo.site. Thank you!