on Apr 22, 2019 at 7:00 am
This morning the court begins the last week of oral arguments for October Term 2018 with arguments in two cases. The first is Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, in which the court will interpret the term “confidential” in a Freedom of Information Act exemption. Mark Fenster previewed the case for this blog. Sarah Evans and Isaac Idicula have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Today’s second case is Fort Bend County v. Davis, which asks whether an employment-discrimination lawsuit is barred if an employee fails to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing it. Charlotte Garden had this blog’s preview. Garion Liberti and Tayler Woelcke preview the case for Cornell.
For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “[t]he Supreme Court this week takes up the most consequential Trump administration initiative since last term’s travel ban, with the justices considering [tomorrow] whether a question about citizenship can be added to the 2020 Census.” Mark Sherman reports at AP that “the accuracy of the once-a-decade population count is at the heart” of the case,” Department of Commerce v. New York. In a preview at Education Week, Mark Walsh focuses on education groups’ concern about the impact of the citizenship question on the allocation of federal funds. Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf for USA Today. At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps explains that “[a]lthough the case has constitutional dimensions—the census itself is created by the Constitution— the result is likely to turn on whether the Department of Commerce, which administers the census, properly read Title 13 of the United States Code.” At the Brennan Center for Justice, Kelly Percival provides highlights from the “three dozen amicus (or friend-of-the-court) briefs that have been filed in support of the plaintiffs challenging Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision” to add the question.
- At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that the Supreme Court’s “newly announced rule changes will force advocates to make their briefs briefer, an unwelcome development for high court practitioners.”
- At the Indiana Law Review, Daniel Coble reviews Joan Biskupic’s new biography of Chief Justice John Roberts, writing that “Biskupic’s ability to illuminate where Roberts has come from to where he is today gives the reader a head start to begin judging the judge.”
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!