On Friday, the Supreme Court denied two requests to temporarily halt enforcement of the “public charge” rule, which governs the admission of noncitizens into the U.S., until the COVID-19 crisis is over. Amy Howe covers the orders for this blog. At The Washington Free Beacon, Kevin Daley reports that “Friday’s decision is a setback for the plaintiffs, but keeps alive the possibility that a court might put the public charge rule on hold for the extent of the pandemic,” because the orders state that they “do[] not preclude” the plaintiffs from returning to the district court to seek relief.
At E&E News, Pamela King covers last Thursday’s opinion in County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, in which the court held that a Clean Water Act permit is required for either a direct discharge of pollutants into navigable waters or its functional equivalent. Also at E&E News, Jeremy Jacobs and King report that “[t]he Supreme Court’s newest justice … waded into the murky waters of Clean Water Act law and may have hinted at where he would come down when other more high-profile cases reach the high court.” At Bloomberg Law, Ellen Gilmer reports that “[t]he Supreme Court’s embrace of a new standard for federal water permitting puts a bull’s-eye on power plant waste sites, environmentalists say.” [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.]
Opening Arguments (podcast) “breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released [last] week, … Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts).” In an episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson “unpack the ruling” in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which a fractured court ruled that the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict in state criminal trials, “a stare decisis throwdown in which Justice Elena Kagan joined some of her Republican-appointed colleagues in dissent, prompting speculation about why she did so.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost considers the implications of the opinions for abortion rights.
Briefly:
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!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY