Friday round-up

Briefly:

• For The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin writes that “[f]or Chief Justice John Roberts, required by the Constitution to preside when the Senate tries a president, the impeachment of Donald Trump offers a chance to distinguish the judiciary from the partisanship engulfing the Capitol.”
• In the latest episode of Law360’s The Term podcast, Jimmy Hoover and Natalie Rodriguez “look ahead to how the Supreme Court’s newly bolstered conservative majority will flex its muscle the rest of this term and those to come.”
• At The Faculty Lounge, Steve Lubet considers Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “controversial observations on the impending Trump impeachment,” suggesting that although some commentators find “the current interview … deeply problematic, … I think there is a more benign interpretation.”

• At Vox (via How Appealing), Ian Millhiser writes that if the Supreme Court “defines the word ‘minister’ broadly” in a pair of consolidated cases about the “ministerial exception” to job-discrimination laws, “that could potentially exempt many employees from the protection of civil rights laws, opening them up to discriminatory actions by the religious institutions they work for.”
• In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse remarks that this term’s decisions in a trio of cases involving Trump’s efforts to shield his financial records from subpoenas issued to his accountant and lenders by a New York grand jury and three congressional committees, “will give the country much-needed clarity about the Supreme Court.”

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!