Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

• At Boise State Public Radio (via How Appealing), James Dawson reports that “[l]awyers representing several homeless people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a request from the city of Boise to review the legality of its anti-camping ordinance,” in City of Boise, Idaho v. Martin.
• At Second Thoughts, Jake Charles examines a suggestion by Justice Neil Gorsuch during the oral argument in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the court will decide whether federal employment discrimination law bars discrimination against transgender people, “that when the textual question is close, a judge might base her decision on whether one interpretation is more likely to create bad consequences than the other”; he argues that “if [Gorsuch’s] textualism is restrained by consequentialist concerns in the Title VII context, then it ought to also be so across the board,” and that “there are some very real consequences that follow a libertarian reading of the Second Amendment.” [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.]
• At Vox (via How Appealing), Ian Millhiser argues that United States v. California, “a challenge to a California ‘sanctuary state’ law that prevents state law enforcement officers from assisting federal immigration officers who seek to deport certain undocumented immigrants, … is not just an important immigration case[:] It is, if the Court takes it up, an integrity test for the Supreme Court’s Republican majority.”

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!