Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg Environment (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that “[e]nvironmentalists and tribal advocates are pushing the Supreme Court to get involved in a long-running dispute over a New Mexico power plant and adjacent coal mine.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioners in this case.]
  • Sarah Tincher reports at The National Law Journal that “some fear [U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, involving the power of the Forest Service to grant rights of way through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail,] could have vast implications on pipeline infrastructure and the country’s National Park System stretching far beyond the Appalachian Trail.” [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 Subscript Law, Mariam Morshedi “highlight[s] a number of arguments presented in the amici briefs” in Google v. Oracle America, a dispute over the copyright status of application programming interfaces. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]

  • At The Nation, Elie Mystal laments that in Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, in which the court held unanimously that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under federal law has to plead and prove that race was a but-for cause of his injury, “[t]he Supreme Court just gave corporations and employers a wide grant to discriminate in their contractual negotiations, as long as they’re not too blatant about that discrimination.”
  • In a series of posts at The Interdependent Third Branch, here, here and here, Lawrence Friedman and Jordan Singer discuss the prospects for “achieving educational and experiential diversity on the Supreme Court.”
  • At Law & Liberty (via How Appealing), John Grove warns that adopting “permanent changes” to the operation of the Supreme Court, “such as televised Supreme Court arguments,” in response to the current public health crisis “would likely lead in directions [the founders] explicitly sought to avoid.”

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 (Mar. 27, 2020, 7:08 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/friday-round-up-516/