Breaking News

Wednesday round-up


  • Ronald Mann analyzes Monday’s opinion in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, in which the court held that the government is not a “person” who can challenge the validity of a patent under the America Invents Act, for this blog.
  • Andrew Siegel has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s opinion in Parker Drilling Management Services. Ltd. v. Newton, in which the justices ruled that “the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act only incorporates state law when federal law’s silence on a particular issue creates a ‘gap’ for state law to fill.”
  • At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Alan Morrison maintains that the court’s ruling in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson that, when original defendant files a counterclaim that brings new parties into a case, a new defendant cannot remove the case to federal court, “brings into focus significant misalignments of purposes concerning the law of removal.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
  • Also at On the Docket, Monte Mills writes that although the outcome in Herrera v. Wyoming, in which the court held that the Crow Tribe retains its rights under an 1868 treaty to hunt in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest, “points to the possibility of a new and improved future for tribal rights before the Supreme Court, neither Mr. Herrera nor Indian law more broadly are out of the woods yet.”

  • For the Washington Independent Review of Books, Kenneth Jost reviews “The Chief,” Joan Biskupic’s recent biography of Chief Justice John Roberts.
  • In an op-ed for Fox News, Curt Levey suggests that progressives may be “aggressively pushing restructuring schemes” for the Supreme Court in order to motivate Chief Justice John Roberts “to distance himself from the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc in an attempt to alleviate the pressure coming from the left.”
  • In an op-ed for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter looks at the Roberts Court’s approach to precedent, maintaining that “[b]y comparison to the two prior chief justices’ courts (William H. Rehnquist and Warren E. Burger), the Roberts Court has overturned constitutional precedents at a much slower pace.”
  • The NFIB blog urges the justices to review a case that calls for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s “infamous 1988 decision in Braswell v. United States, where the Court ruled that a small business cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on behalf of its owner,” arguing that “individuals should not be required to sacrifice their constitutional rights as a condition of opening a business.”

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, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 12, 2019, 6:48 AM),