14 Mar Wednesday round-up
In an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee, Elissa Graves takes a look at National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Change obstacle by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law needing disclosures about the accessibility of openly financed family-planning services, consisting of birth control and abortion; she keeps that “[t] he core of this case is that the federal government is requiring non-profit pro-life pregnancy centers– which offer their services free of charge– to participate in speech contrary to their very factor for presence.” At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo keeps that this “need to be a simple case for the Court to settle– because, rather honestly, there is no forced speech here.”
- At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports on South Dakota v. Wayfair, where the justices will reassess a judgment that restricts the capability of state and city governments to tax online merchants, keeping in mind that “[t] he motivation for South Dakota’s law [requiring out-of-state online retailers to collect state sales taxes] originated from among the 9 individuals who now hold its fate in their hands: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.” [ Disclosure: Goldstein & & Russell, P.C., whose lawyers add to this blog site in numerous capabilities, is amongst the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
- At Bloomberg Law, Patrick Gregory goes over how the Supreme Court’s choice in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional obstacle to the federal restriction on sports wagering, might impact the success of legal obstacles to the policy of violent computer game.
- At The National Law Journal (membership or registration needed), Tony Mauro reports that at its spring conference today, the Judicial Conference, chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, thought about an interim report from a “working group [that] has actually created almost 20 reforms targeted at handling issues about work environment harassment throughout the federal judicial system.”
- For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[a] s she turns 85 today, [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg is sending out a message to President Trump and Republicans in Congress: She means to stay on the court as long as she’s capable.”
- At Law.com, Marcia Coyle reports that in a “uncommon, ‘unwelcome'” amicus short asking the Supreme Court to approve cert in Royal v. Murphy, the Justice Department “stressed that a Native American capital punishment case at the United States Supreme Court might ‘drastically’ overthrow state civil, regulative and criminal jurisdiction in eastern Oklahoma, consisting of the city of Tulsa.”
- NFIB weighs in on Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court needs to reassess a precedent that needs homeowner to tire state solutions prior to bringing profits claims in federal court, arguing that “there is merely no principled factor for closing the federal court home doors particularly for litigants looking for simply payment for a taking of their residential or commercial property.”
- At Mother Jones, Pema Levy keeps in mind that “[t] he Justice Department wishes to completely eliminate the capability of federal judges to provide across the country injunctions– orders that stop a policy from working up until the court has actually formally ruled on its legality,” which “if the Supreme Court concurs with the Justice Department” in Trump v. Hawaii, an obstacle to the current variation of the Trump administration’s entry restriction, the ramifications “will be massive for the future of judicial evaluation and the federal government’s balance of power.”
- Becket debuts the very first 3 episodes of its Stream of Conscience podcast series, where “Katie Geary and Hannah Smith inform the human stories behind twelve varied and prominent spiritual liberty cases” that “show the important have to safeguard this basic flexibility for individuals of all faiths.”
We count on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or understand of a current (released in the last 2 or 3 days) post, post, podcast, or op-ed associating with the Supreme Court that you ‘d like us to think about for addition in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!