The morning read for Wednesday, September 17

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Trump officials to ask Supreme Court to allow it to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post) — Late Monday night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook can remain in office, at least temporarily, as she challenges President Donald Trump’s effort to fire her, thus clearing the way for Cook to participate in this week’s meeting on interest rates. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will appeal the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, but did not say when it would file its emergency application, according to The Washington Post. “The President lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. “The Administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”
• As Trump exerts power, US Supreme Court’s Sotomayor raises specter of a ‘king’ (Andrew Chung, Reuters) — Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday urged Americans to consider the difference between a president and a king during a talk on civics education at New York Law School in Manhattan. “Do we understand what the difference is between a king and a president?” she asked. “I think if people understood these things from the beginning they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy in terms of what people can or should not do.” Sotomayor did not bring up Trump by name as she made these remarks, but “her comments echoed a warning she issued in a dissent last year from the court’s landmark ruling in favor of Trump that declared for the first time that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts while in office,” according to Reuters.
• A Dubious Religious Liberty Case Against Oak Flat Copper Mine (William P. Barr, Wall Street Journal) — In a recent opinion column for the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General William Barr accused the religious-liberty organizations working to block copper mining on land in Arizona that’s sacred to the Western Apache of “embracing reckless legal theories and false narratives.” He contended that “no one has the right to demand perpetual access to federal property, for religious worship or any other purpose,” and said that courts have been right to reject the Western Apache’s religious liberty claims “under longstanding Supreme Court precedent recognizing that the government doesn’t substantially burden religious practice when it chooses how best to manage its own property.” The Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the legal battle in May over the objection of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, but the Western Apache involved in the case filed a petition for rehearing in June, which is set to be considered by the justices at their private conference on Sept. 29.
• Supreme Court cops out on immigration (John Hill, Tampa Bay Times) — The Supreme Court’s recent emergency docket decision allowing federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in Los Angeles and surrounding counties “upended the very concept of due process that’s central to American democracy,” according to a Tuesday column by John Hill in the Tampa Bay Times. “Due process isn’t some meaningless hoop to overcome, but a backstop and guarantee that legitimizes legal authority. It’s an insurance policy when the government does wrong. By cheapening this principle, the high court has weakened government’s standing across the board and public confidence in the judicial system,” Hill contended.
• Dunleavy administration asks US Supreme Court to decide the future of subsistence fishing in Alaska (James Brooks, Alaska Beacon) — The Alaska Department of Law on Monday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that said a federal law granting preferential fishing rights to rural Alaskans controls fishing on federal land rather than the Alaska Constitution. The state contends that its constitution, which outlaws such preferential treatment, should be the basis of such regulations across Alaska. “Doug Vincent-Lang, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said he believes the 9th Circuit decision ‘deepens a fractured system that undermines conservation, creates confusion, and threatens equitable access for all Alaskans. Salmon don’t recognize federal and state boundaries — our management shouldn’t either,'” according to the Alaska Beacon.