Friday round-up

Briefly:

• At USA Today, Richard Wolf predicts “a ferocious battle this year if a seat falls vacant” on the Supreme Court.
• Garrett Epps weighs in at The Atlantic on abortion case June Medical Services v. Russo, arguing that “third-party standing offers only illusory refuge from the grim truth that the Fifth Circuit has raised a judicial middle finger to the Court[:] If the five conservative justices let the lower court manipulate them this time, other conservative lower-court majorities will be back again and again, the appellate tail wagging the meek Supreme Court dog.”
• At Reason, Damon Root questions the lower court’s conclusion in Fourth Amendment case Torres v. Madrid “that no seizure occurred when officers with the New Mexico State Police shot Roxanne Torres twice in the back, because their bullets did not actually stop her from getting away.”

• In an op-ed for The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter considers two “judicial enigmas” on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas.
• At Law & Liberty (via How Appealing), John McGinnis explains why a holding in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that states “cannot exclude religious schools from participating on an equal basis in school choice programs” would “advance[] a classical liberal political economy.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
• Ephrat Livni at Quartz recounts the story, mentioned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in recent remarks, of how the government took the property on which the Supreme Court now stands “from the National Woman’s Party (NWP) and … a feminist jurist fought tooth and nail to get top dollar for it.”

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!