USE IT OR LOSE IT, SCOTUS TAKES UP VOTER PURGE | Good Hombres, Bad Hombres, No One Is Safe | A Simple Request Resolved
May 31, 2017
USE IT OR LOSE IT
|In case you missed it, the Supreme Court decided yesterday that it will review Ohio’s contested voter purge process next term, adding a potentially major case on voting rights to its docket for the first time since JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH took his seat at the Marble Palace. The case is known as Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute and it will consider whether Ohio had the right to remove tens of thousands of voters from the state’s voter list ahead of last November’s election. A lower court had ruled that the procedure was too sweeping and improperly eliminated eligible voters from the rolls.
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Washington Post is giving high praise to our third branch of government opining that the Supreme Court is rising above politics at a time when it isn’t necessarily very easy to do so.
PLEASED TO MEET YOU, HOPE YOU GUESS MY NAME
|Marcia Coyle with The National Law Journal did a Q&A with JACK METZLER, the government lawyer who tweets @SCOTUSPlaces — the handle dedicated to sharing his fascination with the Supreme Court and places connected to it. Read their interview about his rise to Twitter fame and why he was surprised to see #AppellateTwitter take off as one of the nerdiest (coolest) wormholes of the Twittersphere.
EVEN THE GOOD HOMBRES AREN'T SAFE
|Surprise surprise, another federal appeals court just slammed PRESIDENT TRUMP’S deportation policies and it’s making some serious headlines. JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT wrote in an opinion published by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in which he was critical of the government for wanting to deport a 43-year-old coffee farmer who built his life as a successful businessman in Hawaii. The judge wrote in Tuesday’s opinion, “President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the ‘bad hombres.’ The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the ‘good hombres’ are not safe.”
WHAT COMES NEXT
|CNN’s Ariane de Vogue explains what we can expect to come next in the travel ban lawsuits, reporting on everything from what the Supreme Court might have to say about the issue to when the justices could be expected to weigh in.
WHOOPS! WRONG DUDE
|“When the Supreme Court suspended a prominent Massachusetts lawyer and threatened him with disbarment, it started a Boston legal drama that took two weeks to resolve. It ended on Tuesday, when the court acknowledged it had the wrong guy in an order attributing its earlier action to ‘mistaken identity.’” Mark Sherman with The Associated Press reports on this SCOTUS mix-up which he refers to as a “surprisingly sloppy piece of work for a court that sometimes debates the placement of a comma.”
A SIMPLE REQUEST
|A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled unanimously on Tuesday in favor of a transgender student’s challenge to a Wisconsin school district’s policy limiting his restroom usage. Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner reports on the “big win” for transgender rights in America and details the student’s “simple request to use the boys’ restroom while at school.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Should the President's Words Matter in Court?
The New York Times“Giving decisive weight to all presidential statements would be a bad idea. It would unduly empower the president, allowing him to circumvent internal executive-branch processes, and it would also unduly disempower him, preventing him from speaking freely about topics that might have litigation consequences. Each effect would be problematic, whether we’re talking about President Trump or any other president.”
SCOTUS Eliminates the 'Provocation Rule'
The Washington Post“The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, didn’t completely bar the Mendezes from getting compensated. Instead, the court remanded the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and ordered that court to do an analysis on whether the failure to obtain a warrant may have been a proximate cause of the Mendez injuries. But it’s hard to see how a judge could make that determination.”
OTHER NEWS
How a Supreme Court Ruling on Printer Cartridges Changes What It Means to Buy Almost Anything
The Washington Post“Now, the Court has ruled again along those same lines, handing a victory to consumer groups in a case about printer cartridges — or more specifically, toner cartridges, the kind used by laserjet printers. The case has huge implications for the way we think about technology ownership in America, and your rights as a user. Here’s what you need to know.”
For Now, Potential Supreme Court Gun-Rights Case is in Limbo
Constitution Daily“On Tuesday, the Supreme Court yet again took no action on a potential landmark gun-rights case from California and the Ninth Circuit. But when it does act, there will surely be attention paid to how an acceptance or denial of the case with affect the Second Amendment’s future.”