Friday round-up

Briefly:

• For The Washington Post, Teddy Amenobar tells the story behind a new mural of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on a Washington, D.C., wall that shows the justice “wearing her judicial robes with a signature decorative collar, smiling as she gazes toward the U Street corridor.”
• Trialdex previews Banister v. Davis, which asks whether and when a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which sets out the procedures for a motion to alter or amend a judgment, should be treated as a second or successive petition for habeas corpus.
• At Take Care, David Strauss argues that in June Medical Services v. Gee, the court should reverse without briefing and oral argument a lower-court decision upholding Louisiana’s admitting-privileges requirement for physicians who perform abortions because the decision conflicts with a 2016 Supreme Court case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and “[t]he Court should not encourage – in fact, it should make it a point to discourage – the kind of adventurism shown by the Fifth Circuit here.”
• At The New Republic (via How Appealing), Melissa Gira Grant worries that if the workers lose in three upcoming cases that ask whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity, “then all workers could be subject to the stereotypes harbored by their employers about how men and women should appear, behave, and identify.”

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!