Monday round-up

At CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama and now president of the University of California system, will head to war against President Donald Trump in a blockbuster fight at the Supreme Court, in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a challenge to the governments decision to terminate the DACA program, which allowed immigrants brought to this country illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation. In an op-ed for The New York Times, Benjamin Eidelson suggests that [b]y resolving the case on narrow grounds, the justices could steer clear of the political fray and their own jurisprudential divisions.

Briefly:

• For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin notes that Justice [Harry] Blackmun made detailed assessments of Supreme Court advocates, grading them like law students: Future justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito received GPAs of 2.0, 2.8 and 2.5, respectively.
• Greg Stohr reports at Bloomberg that President Donald Trumps administration [has] asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a California immigrant-sanctuary law that restricts local police from helping federal authorities round up and deport people who are in the country illegally.
• At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin collects reactions to the courts unusual choiceof giant of the high court bar [Paul] Clement to argue as an amicus, or friend of the court, in support of the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,] which the Trump administration isnt defending in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a constitutional challenge to the bureaus structure.
• In an op-ed for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Ria Tabacco Mar pushes back against Justice Neil Gorsuchs implication during oral argument in G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that recognizing equal opportunity for transgender workers would lead to turmoil. [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.]

We relyon 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 youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotus-blog.vipdev.lndo.site. Thank you!