Wednesday round-up

Marcia Coyle reports for The National Law Journal that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court’s extraordinary postponement of its March argument session injected new uncertainty into a high-stakes process for a small group of advocates and their clients who said now they will work ‘to stay fresh’ in hopes of getting their turn at the lectern.” At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery writes that “[t]he court made the right call in postponing the upcoming March arguments, not only to safeguard the justices’ health, but also the health of all the other people who would be present in the courtroom.” In an op-ed at CNN (via How Appealing), Elie Honig argues that the court “went too far in postponing oral arguments altogether when it easily could have conducted those arguments as scheduled through live video feed.”

Briefly:

• At Notes on Liberty, Ethan Blevins urges the court “to decide two pressing questions about the Constitution’s role in protecting property rights” in a case stemming from a rule in Seattle that requires landlords to “rent to the first person to walk in the door, so long as they check out on paper.”

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!