Friday round-up

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected another attempt to ease election-related rules during the coronavirus crisis this time by imposing a stay on a lower-court order that would have made it easier for an Idaho advocacy group to gather signatures for a proposed ballot measure. Amy Howe writes for SCOTUSblog in a story first published at Howe on the Court that the justices have now on several occasions signaled that federal courts should not alter rules relating to an election even to accommodate concerns arising from the pandemic.”

Briefly:

• At Education Weeks School Law Blog, Mark Walsh provides additional coverage of Thursdays ruling in the Idaho case, which involves a ballot initiative to increase K-12 education funding. Because of the pandemic, Walsh reports, the group backing the measure suspended its its in-person efforts to collect the necessary 55,000 in-person signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. Thursday’s order means that, at least for now, the group cannot collect signatures electronically as an alternative.
• In a New York Times op-ed, Linda Greenhouse discusses the courts 5-4 ruling last week that turned down a Nevada churchs request to lift the states 50-person cap on religious services. Greenhouse writes that she was startled to see the four dissenters — Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas vote to turn a public health issue into a religious crusade.
• In a National Law Journal op-ed, Dylan Hosmer-Quint of Fix the Court critiques the courts recent use of per curiam decisions in high-profile cases with partisan implications.
• At the Yale Journal on Regulations Notice & Comment blog, Alan Morrison examines the principle of non-delegation and explores why the court recently denied cert in two cases involving the issue despite having recently given very clear and strong indications that it was interested in re-visiting its approach to non-delegation.
• At AlterNet, Bill Blum weighs in on the courts handling of litigation related to the coronavirus pandemic, writing that Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberal justices maintain only a tenuous majority on the court on matters related to COVID-19.

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 youd like us to consider for inclusion, please send it to [email protected]. Thank you!