At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery writes that “[a]fter two hours of oral argument and dozens of questions” Tuesday in a trio of high-profile civil-rights cases involving LGBT employees, “there was not much agreement among the justices.” In an op-ed at Forbes, Michael Bobelian suggests that, “[b]ased on a complex mix of conflicting methods of statutory interpretation, the application of principles from a law enacted in a bygone age to new social norms, and the justices’ ideologies, the cases pose an unusual cocktail of opportunities and pitfalls for the justices.” At Balkinization, Marty Lederman offers “some thoughts on three issues the Justices and defendants’ advocates raised.” Masha Gessen observes at The New Yorker (via How Appealing) that “the Justices wanted to talk about bathrooms.” Additional commentary and analysis comes from Nonnie Shivers at Ogletree Deakins. [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 Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.]


  • For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports on the role Chief Justice John Roberts would play at a possible presidential impeachment trial, noting that “[t]hose who know him best say he’s a perfect fit for the job.”
  • At The New Rambler, Calvin TerBeek maintains that if Justice Neil Gorsuch’s new “book is meant as a reassurance that originalism is a politically neutral and objective method of constitutional interpretation, it is more cause for concern than comfort.”
  • At Ogletree Deakins, Hera Arsen offers “a rundown of the employment law related cases that Supreme Court watchers can expect this term.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times (subscription required), Linda Greenhouse writes that “[u]nder the rules that normally govern the American judicial system, the Louisiana abortion law at the center of [June Medical Services v. Gee] is flagrantly unconstitutional”; she goes on to explain “not only the stakes in the case but also Louisiana’s strategy for saving its law, the first of a wave of anti-abortion measures to reach a Supreme Court transformed by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the addition of two justices appointed by President Donald Trump.”
  • Also in an op-ed for The Times, Nikolas Bowie weighs in on Financial Oversight Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, which asks whether the members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause, cautioning that, “in the name of freeing Puerto Rico from unconstitutional oversight by an unelected board, the court might make Washington[, D.C.] and the territories even more constitutionally anomalous and less democratic than they are now.”

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 (Oct. 10, 2019, 7:17 AM),