Friday round-up

At the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh looks ahead to the “several potential blockbusters to be argued in the second half of the term.” Also at the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky agrees that “[t]he court is likely to dominate the headlines in May, and especially June 2020, with rulings on almost every major controversial area of law.”

Briefly:

• Kevin Daley reports at the Daily Caller that “[m]ore than 200 members of Congress [have] urged the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade,” “ahead of a March case concerning the constitutionality of a Louisiana regulation on abortion providers.”
• At NPR (via How Appealing), Greg Allen covers the “decades-long legal battle over water resources” between Georgia and Florida that “is now headed to the Supreme Court.”

• At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Walter Olson assesses claims by commentators “that the makeup of the present Supreme Court is illegitimate.”
• At The Federalist Society’s blog, Thomas Berg and others argue that in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, in which the court will consider the scope of a court-created doctrine that prohibits courts from reviewing employment decisions by religious employers involving their ministers, the court should hold that any “employee who performs a significant religious function is a minister whom the organization has a right to choose without interference by courts and juries.”
• At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger finds Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent reminder that federal judges should “‘judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch’” particularly relevant in capital cases, in which “[i]deological bias and excessive delay are all too common.”
• At Slate, Ashwin Phatak weighs in on Trump v. Mazars, a challenge to a congressional subpoena for the president’s financial records, urging the justices to reject dissenting Judge Naomi Rao’s “novel theories that, taken together, would all but preclude Congress from enforcing legitimate subpoenas against the president in court and place him largely above the law.”

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!