Greg Stohr reports for Bloomberg that  the “Supreme Court is again poised to test the bounds of Donald Trump’s presidential powers, this time in a politically charged clash over the fate of 700,000 people who were brought into the country illegally as children,” in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a challenge to the government’s decision to terminate the DACA program. An interactive article by Miriam Jordan at The New York Times profiles some DACA recipients; at The Baltimore Sun, Thalia Juarez interviews one of the plaintiffs in the case. At Axios, Denis McDonough writes that the case “could not only upend 700,000 immigrants’ lives but present serious risks to U.S. national security.” At Slate, Aaron Tang urges the justices to rule against the government, arguing that “our legal system requires truthful reasons for administrative action.”

At the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, in which the court will consider whether, to pursue a claim under a federal statute that prohibits race discrimination in contracting, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant’s “action would not have been taken but for the alleged racial discrimination.” In an op-ed for Forbes, Rich Samp argues that “Congress adopted the civil rights laws to eliminate racial discrimination in the making of contracts, not as a litigation tool that unhappy plaintiffs can use to browbeat others into making unwanted deals.”

Briefly:

  • Lisa Heinzerling analyzes Wednesday’s argument in 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 , for this blog. [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 Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at two “cases [that] will shed light on how far constitutional limitations protect against government power in immigration matters” —Hernandez v. Mesa, which “asks whether there is a remedy for a Mexican citizen killed when a Border Patrol agent in the United States opens fire on someone in Mexico,” and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which “tests a speedy deportation system called ‘expedited removal,’ … that gives immigrants few of the procedural guarantees of regular deportation proceedings.”
  • The New York Times’ podcast The Daily focuses on Aimee Stephens, “the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that will determine the employment rights of gay and transgender workers across the nation.”
  • In the latest episode of Law360’s The Term podcast, “the team dissects a heated exchange between two justices in a case involving the Clean Water Act and then explores the potential impact of upcoming arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.”

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!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 8, 2019, 6:52 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/friday-round-up-495/