Monday round-up

In an op-ed for The Hill, Ken Starr argues that the plaintiffs in the three upcoming cases involving whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity are “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to read into Title VII language that was neither considered at the time of its passage, nor added in the decades following.” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman explains why the “common framing of the question [in the two sexual-orientation cases]—based on a hypothetical employer who believes that homosexuality as such is immoral and thus won’t employ gay men or lesbians—is not, in fact, the scenario raised by these cases or, indeed, by virtually any of the reported cases in which employees have alleged that they were fired because of their same-sex orientation.”

Briefly:

• At USA Today, Richard Wolf interviews Justice Neil Gorsuch about Gorsuch’s new book, calling the book “like the justice himself, a study in contrasts.”
• At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle report that a new Supreme Court rule requiring cert petitions to “include a new and informative section: a listing of related proceedings that took place before—sometimes decades before—the case being brought before the high court” is designed to alert the justices to previous involvement in a case that may require their recusal.

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!