WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, Dec. 3

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Friday morning read:

• More Democratic senators are willing to weigh changes to Supreme Court (Seung Min Kim, The Washington Post)
• The Supreme Court Looks Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade (Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker)
• Roe ‘settled’ law? Justices’ earlier assurances now in doubt (Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press)
• The Only Mother on the Court (Melissa Murray, The New York Times)
• Will the Justices Let Go of Abortion? (Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, Dec. 2

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Supreme Court indicates it could eliminate a core element of Roe v. Wade (Shefali Luthra, The 19th)
• John Roberts has a plan that would gut — yet save — Roe v. Wade. Can it work? (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• The End of Roe Is Coming, and It Is Coming Soon (Mary Ziegler, The New York Times)
• The Justices Are Having An Open Fight About The Legitimacy Of The Supreme Court (Zoe Tillman, BuzzFeed News)
• The unknown Supreme Court clerk who single-handedly created the Roe v. Wade viability standard (James D. Robenalt, The Washington Post)

RELIST WATCH

No new relists, but one likely grant in an international child custody case

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

A lot happened on the relist front over Thanksgiving as the Supreme Court has disposed of two of the remaining relists.

First, the parties settled the much-relisted rehearing petition in Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, 19-333, involving a florist who argued that requiring her to create custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding would violate her religious beliefs. Thus, the court finally dismissed the case, which the court had relisted 11 times during the more than two years it was pending at the Supreme Court. But those hoping the court will address the same basic issue will have another chance soon in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, involving a web designer. The court will almost certainly consider that case in late December or early January in time for the case to be granted in time for argument during the April sitting. The court also granted review in the only new relist from two weeks ago, Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 21-248, addressing the ability of North Carolina legislators to intervene to defend the state’s voter-ID law from lawsuits under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. [Disclosure: My law firm, Arnold & Porter, is among the counsel to the NAACP in this case.]

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, Dec. 1

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Supreme Court considers whether to reverse Roe v. Wade in historic arguments (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Roe and Casey: The two abortion precedents the Supreme Court may overturn (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• What abortion laws would look like if Roe v. Wade was overturned (Daniela Santamariña, The Washington Post)
• Mississippi Asks: If Women Can Have It All, Is Roe Necessary? (Claire Cain Miller, The New York Times)
• ‘Even if we win, we lose’: Abortion access in Miss. already limited without Roe challenge (Sarah Haselhorst & Maria Clark, Mississippi Clarion Ledger)

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Justices mull Chevron and voice skepticism of Medicare’s rate cut for hospital drugs

On Tuesday, in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the Supreme Court appeared receptive to the claim that Medicare overstepped its authority when it cut the amount that it paid certain hospitals for drugs they dispensed in their outpatient departments. None of the justices voiced sympathy with the government’s argument that Congress had precluded judicial review of the question. And while oral argument mainly involved a technical discussion about statutory meaning, several of the conservative justices toyed with the possibility of abandoning Chevron deference — the principle that the courts will defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute that it administers.