Thursday round-up

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that yesterday “the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for permission to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially known as the ‘remain in Mexico’ policy, while it appeals to the Supreme Court.” At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “[t]he justices, over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, blocked a federal appeals court decision that would have let future asylum seekers stay in the U.S. temporarily while their applications are being processed[; t]he appeals court ruling, which would have applied to new applicants in California and Arizona, was set to take effect Thursday.” Nicole Narea writes at Vox that “[h]ad the Ninth Circuit’s block on MPP gone into effect, it would have raised concerns that migrants could have overwhelmed the ports of entry.” John Kruzel reports at The Hill that “[m]ore than 60,000 asylum-seekers have been barred from entry since the program was implemented just over a year ago, according to the Department of Homeland Security.” At The Washington Free Beacon, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]he decision is the latest in a series of administration victories on immigration issues before the Supreme Court.”

Briefly:

• At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Philip Hamburger urges the court to review Monex Deposit Company v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, arguing that “the CFTC’s ambiguity about the ambiguity that underlies its regulatory position has denied the petitioners their due process right to know the legal basis of the charges against them.”
• In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse weighs in on June Medical Services v. Russo, which asks whether a Louisiana law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges conflicts with a 2016 precedent; she asserts that a ruling “that treats [the Supreme Court’s] 2016 decision as anything other than completely binding on Louisiana[] will be nothing but a smoke screen[: a] cynic might call it an election-year ploy designed to make an indefensible outcome look moderate.”

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!