Wednesday round-up

At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie charts recent developments in the government’s renewed efforts to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census after the Supreme Court blocked the question at the end of June. Jess Bravin and Sadie Gurman report for The Wall Street Journal that a “federal judge in New York on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration’s plan to switch legal teams in the census case.” At Balkinization, Simon Lazarus maintains that “to dismiss [Chief Justice John] Roberts’ census decision as simply or even primarily political, is wrong, misleading, and even dangerous – as was the identical, widespread misread of his NFIB v. Sebelius decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act individual mandate as a tax.”

Briefly:

• At Take Care, Joshua Matz explains why “Title VII must be read as prohibiting discrimination based on transgender status,” answering a question presented in next term’s R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in this case.]
• In an op-ed at Indian Country Today, Troy Eid suggests that “the unexpected pause in the Court’s consideration” of  Carpenter v. Murphy, “one of the most significant tribal treaty-rights cases in a generation,” which the court has set for reargument next term, “might be a blessing in disguise.”
• At Maryland Matters, Allison Stephens notes that “[b]attles over partisan gerrymandering are poised to shift to the states in the wake of a major U.S. Supreme Court decision issued late last month” holding that partisan-gerrymandering challenges are not reviewable in federal court.
• In the latest episode of SCOTUStalk, Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington discuss last term’s most notable cases with Laura Safdie of Casetext.

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!