For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “[i]mmigrant-rights groups asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to postpone ruling on their legal challenge to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census until allegations that the query was intended to bolster Republican political advantages can be heard by a lower court.” Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that “[r]ather than decide the case on ‘an incomplete and misleading record,’ challengers asked the justices to send it back to a lower court for further fact-finding unless they are ready to strike down the citizenship question.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes writes that “[t]he motion filed Wednesday night is highly unusual but is representative of the enormous consequences of the decision and the politics surrounding it.”


  • At CNN, Joan Biskupic notes that “[t]his is the first time in [John] Roberts’ 14 years as chief justice that he will likely be the deciding vote on several final, tense cases — a total of 24 over the next two weeks.”
  • Kate Shaw interviews retired Justice John Paul Stevens about the justice’s new memoir for this blog.
  • Pamela Manson reports for UPI on three cases the court will hear next term that ask whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity.
  • In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Ronald Klain warns that although “[a]ll but the oldest Americans have lived their entire adult lives under a Supreme Court associated with progressive social change,” “[w]e need to prepare for a complete reversal of the role the court plays in our public life.”
  • At Procedurally Taxing, Carlton Smith considers the implications for tax law of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, in which the court held that Title VII’s requirement that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.
  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie discusses the Supreme Court’s refusal this week to review al-Alwi v. Trump, an appeal by a Yemeni citizen who has been detained for 17 years at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  • At the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Blog, Lisa Soronen remarks that Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, which the justices will hear next term and which asks whether federal law pre-empts state-law claims for clean-up of hazardous waste beyond what the EPA has ordered, “provides an interesting mixed bag for states and local governments.”
  • At Reason, Damon Root writes that in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices are reconsidering precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, the court will decide whether “the public [is] better served when the courts allow federal agencies broad leeway to maneuver, as [Justice Stephen] Breyer maintained [during oral argument], or … when the courts strictly supervise the actions of those agencies, as [Justice Neil] Gorsuch maintained.”

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!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 13, 2019, 6:52 AM),