WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, May 17

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

• Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to consumer protection agency (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display (Jodi Kantor, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pressed on questions over friend’s $267,000 RV loan (Josephine Rozzelle & Rebecca Picciotto, CNBC)
• CFPB Supreme Court Win Is a Loss for Congress (Stephen L. Carter, Bloomberg Law)
• Clarence Thomas led Supreme Court majority in upholding consumer protections. What that means (Steve Vladeck, CNN)

Coming up: On Thursday, May 23, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, May 16

This morning, at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue opinions in one or more cases from the current term. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Supreme Court clears way for Louisiana congressional map with 2 Black districts (Madison Fernandez, Politico)
• Supreme Court upholds Louisiana redistricting plan (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Ghostwriters Try Steering Supreme Court Justices Away from Cases (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law)
• Ketanji Brown Jackson Notes Key Question in Supreme Court Decision (Kaitlin Lewis, Newsweek)
• In a nod to history, Biden will meet with Brown v. Board of Education families (Francesca Chambers, USA Today)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, May 15

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

• Pressure Builds for Supreme Court to Address Transgender Cases (Jan Wolfe & Laura Kusisto, The Wall Street Journal)
• Indigenous group to take fight against Arizona copper mine to Supreme Court (Clark Mindock, Reuters)
• 70 years ago, school integration was a dream many believed could actually happen. It hasn’t (Annie Ma, The Associated Press)
• Chief Justice Talks Prairie Dogs as Colleagues Talk Substance (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson & Michael Shapiro, Bloomberg Law)
• The Dog That Didn’t Bark Is Rewriting the Second Amendment (Fredrick Vars, New York University Law Review)

Coming up: On Thursday, May 16, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, May 14

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

• Supreme Court declines to hear two-step bankruptcy case that drew Senate attention (Dietrich Knauth, Reuters)
• Supreme Court denies California’s appeal for immunity for COVID-19 deaths at San Quentin prison (Christopher Weber, The Associated Press)
• Justices Jackson, Sotomayor call out Supreme Court for rejecting due process appeal (Jordan Rubin, MSNBC)
• Supreme Court fires back: Justices speak out on security, free speech and ‘lies’ (Alex Swoyer, The Washington Times)
• In praise of robotic judging (Adam Unikowsky, Adam’s Legal Newsletter)

Coming up: On Thursday, May 16, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.

SCOTUS NEWS

Court declines death penalty case on jury selection

Over a written dissent by two justices, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a death penalty case asking them to weigh in on when jury selection begins and the defendant has a right to be present. The order in Sandoval v. Texas came as part of a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term.

The denial of review came in the case of a Texas man, Gustavo Sandoval, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for the killing of an off-duty border patrol officer during an attempted robbery. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the state’s highest court for criminal cases, concluded that Sandoval did not have a constitutional right to attend special proceedings at which a judge conducted preliminary interviews of potential jurors who had been called specifically for his case, and who were given information about Sandoval and the charges against him.