on Jun 24, 2020 at 6:48 am
At NBC News (via How Appealing), Julie Moreau reports that last week’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the court held that federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees, “which was widely praised by LGBTQ advocates but condemned by social conservatives[,] will likely have broad ramifications that go far beyond employment protections.” At the Duke Center for Firearms Law’s Second Thoughts blog, Darrell Miller looks at the decision’s “implications for Second Amendment doctrine,” suggesting that “the meaning of ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment – still undecided by the Court – may come down to what kind of textualism the Justices adopt – that of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock or that of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent.” At the Urban Institute blog, Wesley Jenkins writes that “[a]lthough the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a profound impact in promoting equality for LGBT Americans, important work lies ahead to make rights meaningful in systems throughout the nation.” At the Daily Journal (via RBGG.com), Sanford Jay Rosen unpacks the opinions in Bostock. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, which was decided along with Bostock.]
- At Bloomberg Law, Ellen Gilmer reports that “[t]he Supreme Court’s surprise rebuke last week of the Trump administration’s bid to rescind the Obama-era DACA immigration program may have unexpected impacts on environmental litigation over fossil fuel development, pipelines, and other projects”: “Legal scholars seized on one aspect of the majority opinion to question whether lower courts are likely to continue a practice—known in legalese as ‘remand without vacatur’—of leaving flawed government decisions intact while giving agencies a second chance to explain themselves.”
- At The Washington Free Beacon, Stephen Gutowski looks at Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, “the sole case with Second Amendment implications remaining before the Court after the justices rejected 10 other gun-rights cases on June 15.”
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!