Friday round-up

Briefly:

• At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston looks at the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, at issue in United States v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administrations deferred-action policy for immigration, and notes that if the Court does reach the issue, it very likely will have to provide a full explanation of what that clause means” “for the first time in history.
• In USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that, as he moves into his second decade as the nation’s 17th chief justice, Chief Justice John Roberts is proving to be strikingly consistent in one area that conservatives applaud. He wantsto close the courthouse doors to challengers with tenuous legal grounds orclaims, thereby limiting the role of the judicial branch.
• The editorial board of the Washington Examiner weighs in on American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, the challenge to the Obama administrations efforts to regulate pollution inthe Chesapeake Bay watershed, and argues that the lower courts rulings in the case seem to contradict recent Supreme Court rulings that set limits on how far federal agencies can go in rewriting statutes.
• In The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses a recent article observing that the Supreme Court has never been older and notes that watching the current Justices at work these days is not to witness scenes out of a nursing home.
• In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on comments by Chief Justice John Roberts, who said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the publics perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.

If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotus-blog.vipdev.lndo.site.