Monday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will kick off its November sitting with oral arguments in two cases. First up is Barton v. Barr, which asks whether a green-card holder who is not seeking admission to the U.S. can be “rendered inadmissible” so as to stop the clock on accumulating a long enough period of continuous residence to be eligible for relief from deportation. Jayesh Rathod had this blog’s preview. Prachee Sawant and Robert Reese Oñate preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

This morning’s second argument is in Kansas v. Glover, in which the court will consider whether, for the purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for a police officer to suspect that the registered owner of a car is the driver. This blog’s preview came from Evan Lee. Basem Besada and Philip Duggan have a preview for Cornell. Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for the case. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.]

On Friday, the justices added one case to their merits docket for the term: Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether the SEC can seek disgorgement of profits as a remedy for violating the securities-fraud laws. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the new grant poses “a challenge to one of the [SEC]’s most potent legal weapons.”

At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Corbin Barthold weighs in on Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a constitutional challenge to the structure of the CFPB, arguing that “[t]here can be no doubt … about what the constitutional text and history teach us[:] The president, they say, can remove officers at will.” Additional commentary comes from Oliver Dunford in an op-ed for the Daily Journal.

Briefly:

• For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes assesses the cost of John “Sturgeon’s 12-year, only-in-Alaska battle to travel on a forbidden hovercraft through national parkland to his favorite hunting spot,” which resulted in two Supreme Court victories, including one last term, at “well north of $1.5 million.”
• At Bloomberg Environment, Ellen Gilmer previews 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. [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 Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson report that “[t]hree of the 28 lawyers who’ll argue at the U.S. Supreme Court in November are women, and five of the men who’ll take the podium have already done so this term.”
• For The Washington Times (via How Appealing), Alex Swoyer reports that “[a] Nebraska man who killed multiple people to honor an ancient Egyptian god has asked the Supreme Courtto review his death sentence, saying that life in prison is fairer.”
• For Capitol Media Services (via com), Howard Fischer reports that “[a]ttorneys for a major opioid manufacturer are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a bid by Attorney General Mark Brnovich to have the justices decide if the family members who own the company are ‘looting’ its assets.”
• At The Washington Post (subscription required), Tonja Jacobi and others note that “[n]ine cases into the court’s current term, which began Oct. 7, the justices are observing a new rule that requires them to ‘generally’ hold their fire during the first 120 seconds of oral argument, allowing attorneys to have their say in a ‘quiet zone’ before the justices interrupt with their questions and comments.”
• In an op-ed for The Hill (via How Appealing), Aaron Tang weighs in on Hernandez v. Mesa, which arises from a Mexican family’s efforts to hold a U.S. Border Patrol agent liable for the shooting death of their son, who was on the Mexican side of the border, arguing that “[a] ruling for the Hernandez family on th[e] ground … that, although both sides have reasonable legal arguments, Border Patrol agents are better able to avoid the costs of a Supreme Court defeat[,] would show honesty and humility on the part of the Supreme Court.”
• Also at The Hill, Kate Anderson and Jay Hobbs maintain that a recent survey of public opinion about the Supreme Court conducted by Marquette Law School “provided little insight into anything about the court itself[;] Instead, it provided far more insight into how loaded questions can shape public opinion polls.”

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!