Friday round-up

Briefly:

• Pratheepan Gulasekaram analyzes Wednesdays oral argument in Kansas v. Garcia, which asks whether federal immigration law preempts a state prosecution for identity theft based on using someone elses Social Security number to obtain employment, for this blog.
• At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that yesterday the court issued guidance for filers of friend-of-the-court briefs that clears up a number of contested issues previously resolved through word-of-mouth lore among practitioners, one of them said.
• In an op-ed for USA Today, Gabe Roth calls on the court to release information about which justices are voting to grant review in the major cases the court is taking, such as the recently granted abortion case June Medical Services v. Gee; he argues that [i]f the Supreme Courts work is truly done apolitically, we would see Republican-appointed justices voting for grants with Democratic-appointed justices just as often as with their Republican-appointed colleagues.
• At PrawfsBlawg (via How Appealing), Richard Re explains that in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the justices will decide whether the Sixth Amendments guarantee of a unanimous jury applies to the states, a lot of the Courts discussion at oral argument focused on issues of stare decisis, particularly what to do with fragmented decisions.

We relyon 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 youd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotus-blog.vipdev.lndo.site. Thank you!