SCOTUS Delayed Oral Arguments Scheduled For This Month | Wisconsin Republicans Ask Justices To Review New COVID-Related Rules For State Primary
April 6, 2020
ICYMI
|On Friday, the Supreme Court announced its oral arguments scheduled for this month will be delayed, and the high court seemed to hint that it may not hear arguments in most of its delayed cases until next term. There are 20 or so cases that have been put off in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A press release from SCOTUS said it would “consider a range of scheduling options and other alternatives if arguments cannot be held in the courtroom before the end of the court term.” Some of the cases waiting a Supreme Court hearing are very time sensitive, including two concerning PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial records and one concerning so-called “faithless electors.” Justices may want to handle both of those cases before the November elections.
ZOOM ZOOM
|“The Supreme Court Is Delaying Arguments Again — Why Don’t They Just Do A Videoconference Like The Rest Of Us?” That’s the title of a recent piece from Dominic Holden with Buzzfeed who reports, “The roadblock has frustrated activists who say the court must adapt on urgent matters of national interest. The nine justices already hold video conferences for their weekly closed-door conferences — prompting a growing cry to simply hold oral arguments with a videoconferencing service.” GABE ROTH, Executive Director of Fix the Court, said of the new delays, “This is getting ridiculous. If the Supreme Court can conduct its weekly conferences remotely, which it has been doing for weeks, it can conduct its remaining arguments remotely and allow the public to listen in.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the Supreme Court’s delaying of its cases that had been scheduled for oral argument later this month. The Ed Board notes that there are indeed some cases that need urgent review ahead of the upcoming elections and writes, “And if virus circumstances don’t cooperate? The justices may have to forgo oral arguments or consider conducting them online. The justices have access to written briefs that could inform opinions without an oral argument. The justices could even—sorry, your Honors—forgo their annual summer break.”
DEATH TO DEMOCRACY
|Over the weekend, the Supreme Court was called on to weigh in on Wisconsin’s primary elections scheduled for tomorrow. Wisconsin Republicans asked SCOTUS to block a lower court ruling that extended the deadline for voters to submit absentee ballots so that voters don’t have to risk their health and safety by going in-person to the polls. The next day, Wisconsin Democrats urged the justices to stay out of it and allow the lower court ruling to stay in place. Democrats argued that a stay in the lower court’s decision could “exacerbate the unfolding COVID-19 public health disaster” and that “thousands will be disenfranchised” should the state not go through with collection of absentee ballots after the deadline.
WISH I COULD
|Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reports SCOTUS did not take up a lower court’s decision that Washington’s Metro system did not violate the First Amendment by banning religious advertising. JUSTICE NEIL M. GORSUCH argued the lower court decision was wrong writing, “The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing.” He was joined by CLARENCE THOMAS but because JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH had to recuse himself from the case because he had previously worked on it, Gorsuch noted the case “makes a poor candidate for our review.”