At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the “Supreme Court term … so far is defined less by the issues the justices have decided than by those they’ve deferred,” noting that the court has “put off taking action in cases involving abortion, same-sex wedding cakes and transgender bathroom access,” as well as “President Donald Trump’s bid to end deportation protection for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants.” At The Hill, Jacqueline Thomsen reports that the court’s protracted consideration of the cert petitions in the abortion and wedding-cake cases has “fuel[ed] speculation about the justices’ closed-door deliberations.”

Briefly:

  • Patrick Gregory reports at Bloomberg Law that a “Christian school is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to stop alleged zoning discrimination, and a dissent from a Trump shortlister for the high court might help.”

  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that a “book-length opinion striking down Ohio’s congressional map by a panel of three federal judges on May 3rd was written with one particular readership in mind—the justices of the Supreme Court,” who are expected to decide in two cases this term “whether the constitution imposes limits on partisan line-drawing.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse weighs in on Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, arguing “that validating the Trump administration’s cynical hijacking of the census would have a devastating effect on the integrity of the Supreme Court.”
  • At Final Decisions, Bryan Lammon observes that the recently filed cert petition in Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Adobe Systems Inc. “presents a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-explain” its reasoning in 2017’s Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, which involved the effect of a voluntary dismissal on a plaintiff’s right to appeal a district-court order denying class certification.
  • @theBar, a podcast by the Chicago Bar Association, features a discussion with Dan Cotter, the author of “The Chief Justices: The Seventeen Men of the Center Seat, Their Courts and Their Times,” about “the history of the handful of jurists who have led the Supreme Court.”
  • In an article for the San Francisco Daily Journal, Sanford Jay Rosen discusses three cases in which the court will consider next term whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity.

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!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 10, 2019, 7:11 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/friday-round-up-470/