Friday round-up

Briefly:

• Greg Stohr reports at Bloomberg that County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which asks whether the Clean Water Act covers pollution that moves through groundwater before reaching a federal waterway, could impose major limits on the [statute], giving mines and coal-fired power plants what environmental advocates say would be a new license to pollute. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
• At The Hill, Harper Neidig reports that the Supreme Court is poised to rule on a range of controversial political issues in its current term, potentially putting the high court’s broad popularity with the public to the test.
• In the latest episode of Law360s The Term podcast, Jimmy Hoover and Natalie Rodriguez look at the Clean Water Act case, along with Kansas v. Glover, about why some allegedly common sense traffic stops may be unconstitutional. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in Glover.]
• At Reasons Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orrin Kerr offer[s] a few thoughts about different ways the Justices might approach Glover.

• Also at Volokh Conspiracy (via How Appealing), Will Baude passes on Todd Hendersons thoughts about Sharp v. Murphy, a complicated murder case involving federal Indian law, and the problem that the Supreme Court’s precedents in this area have created for itself.
• At the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky previews 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.
• At Townhall, John Bursch weighs in on 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, arguing that your freedom to rely on what the law saysand much moremay very well depend on the outcome. [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!