Amy Howe reports at Howe on the Court that the Supreme Court last night “gave the government the go-ahead to enforce a new rule that would bar most immigrants from applying for asylum if they pass through another country – such as Mexico – without seeking asylum there before arriving in the United States … while it appeals a decision by a federal judge in California to the 9th Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.” At The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report that the ruling “giv[es] new life to White House efforts to deter a flood of immigrants seeking refuge at the southern border.” At CNN, Ariane de Vogue and Priscilla Alvarez report that “Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their dissent.”

Alex Swoyer reports at The Washington Times (via How Appealing) that a “Christian florist, who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding, has again requested that the Supreme Court take her case, filing a new petition Wednesday.” At the Washington Blade, Chris Johnson reports that the florist “[c]ontend[s] the state attorney general had clear anti-religion bias in pursuing the case against her.”


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 (Sep. 12, 2019, 7:02 AM),