WHY ARE JUSTICES SO CAMERA SHY | Does SCOTUS Have Blood On Its Hands | EPA Rolls Back CPP
October 6, 2017
CAMERA SHY
|CNN’s Ariane de Vogue reports on Tuesday’s partisan gerrymandering case which she says serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court sets its own path when it comes to transparency. “Court junkies around the country erupted in outrage when transcripts for the oral arguments appeared later than usual on the court’s website. On top of that, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS had denied a congressional request to release same-day audio of the proceedings. And, as always, no video cameras were allowed in. With a blockbuster term including cases on religious liberty, immigration, privacy and voting rights, questions are again being asked why the Supreme Court remains so opaque.”
SO WHAT'S THIS REALLY ABOUT
|ICYMI, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S lawyers urged SCOTUS yesterday to wipe away appeals courts rulings that struck down earlier versions of his travel ban policy. David Savage with the Los Angeles Times explains the issues that remain around the ban and what lawyers are hoping to accomplish in this latest round of legal battling.
THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS
|Lyle Denniston for Constitution Daily covers yesterday’s travel ban filings and notes that there’s basically one question left for the Supreme Court on the subject: “Will the defeats the administration already suffered in this fight in lower courts remain, or be wiped off the books?” Denniston reports the justices will likely consider this question during their private conference today.
TOP-ED -- DON'T MAKE ME WAIT LONG
|In the Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough opines that same-day audio should be offered for every Supreme Court case. He notes, “Many arguments wouldn’t be entertaining or even illuminating; the court’s docket includes a lot of mind-numbingly technical matters that bore even lawyers. But to the extent that citizens or the news media are interested in what is said at the court, it’s absurd to suggest that same-day audio would undermine the decorum of the institution.”
BLOODY HELLER
|The Supreme Court has blood on its hands this week following Sunday night’s massacre in Las Vegas. Dahlia Lithwick with Slate argues the Supreme Court created a gun rights crisis, and now it’s unwilling to solve it. She asserts that the one branch of government that has the “institutional capacity to consider the relationship between guns and personal liberty” is, of course, SCOTUS. Lithwick: “Most Americans desperately want at least some reasonable gun regulations: background checks, limited magazine capacity, and other easy fixes that would in no way run afoul of the SCALIA principle. But they have been convinced by a craven and self-interested gun lobby that Heller said what it didn’t say: that any regulation of any weapon violates the Constitution. That is perfectly false. And the court itself could put that wrongheaded notion to rest in a hot minute.”
I'VE GOT THE POWER
|It looks like the EPA is ready to roll back PRESIDENT OBAMA’S landmark climate policy for power plants and argue the Clean Power Plan violates federal law. The CPP allows the federal government to set reduction carbon targets for states and have them find their own ways for hitting said targets. But now the Trump administration is arguing that a regulation such as the CPP that affects the broader electricity sector is outside the agency’s purview.
WHERE IS THE LOVE
|Thursday, ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS ordered his department to take the position in court cases that transgender people are not protected by a civil rights law that bans workplace discrimination based on sex. Charlie Savage with The New York Times reports.
OTHER NEWS
The Supreme Court Discussed My Research on Gerrymandering. There Were Some Misconceptions.
The Washington Post“My research played a role in this case, although I am not part of the legal team. I invented a measure of partisan advantage in redistricting — the “efficiency gap” — that the plaintiffs in the case have relied on. I also filed a lengthy brief in the case that sought to inform the court about the available metrics and the relationships between them.”
Justices Pass Up False Claims Disputes, But More Cases Are in the Wings
The National Law Journal“The U.S. Supreme Court this week turned away six False Claims Act challenges, but more disputes in the wings will try to capture the justices’ interest in one of the U.S. government’s most lucrative civil tools in the fight against fraud.”
No Class Action: Supreme Court Weighs Whether Workers Must Face Arbitrations Alone
NPR“Many employers are increasingly requiring workers to sign agreements requiring them to resolve workplace disputes about anything from harassment to discrimination to wage theft through individual arbitration. In other words, the language does not permit them to join forces with colleagues who might have similar complaints. Whether such prohibitions on collective arbitration are legal is at issue in a trio of cases heard by the Supreme Court this week.”