Monday round-up

Briefly:

• In the Atlantic, Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn weigh in on the debate over potential structural reforms to the Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats should abandon proposals to add justices or impose term limits and, instead, should strip power from the institution itself by “removing certain cases from its jurisdiction, requiring a greater number of justices to agree in order to interfere with democratic choices, or letting Congress override any glaring mistakes.”
• At the National Review’s Bench Memos blog, John Bursch looks at the nascent effects of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, highlighting a ruling last week from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that cited Espinoza in ruling against a Vermont educational program that excludes students attending religious high schools.

• At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost critiques a series of emergency rulings related to the coronavirus, writing that the justices “have been divided along partisan lines in dealing with the pandemic” since April.
• In Arguendo, the online companion to the George Washington Law Review, Sean Sherman tells the story of one of the unheralded plaintiffs in the landmark school-speech case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The essay has a foreword by Justice Clarence Thomas.
• At E&E News, Pamela King reports on a new cert petition in United States v. Kane County, which asks the court to weigh in on the ability of environmentalist groups to intervene in litigation over rights of way on federal lands.

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, please send it to [email protected]. Thank you!