“Clarence Thomas Joins Liberals, Shocks World: A strange Supreme Court alliance just struck a blow against racial gerrymandering in the United States.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Disagreeing With Rick Hasen on the North Carolina Case”: Richard Pildes has this post at the “Election Law Blog.”
Also at that blog, Justin Levitt has a post titled “NC redistricting, from someone not named Rick.”
“The case for renaming Boalt Hall”: Charles Reichmann has this essay online at The San Francisco Chronicle.
“The Supreme Court may just have given voting rights activists a powerful new tool”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Trump Seeks Delay of Ruling on Health Law Subsidies, Prolonging Uncertainty”: Robert Pear of The New York Times has this report.
And Paul Demko, Jennifer Haberkorn, and Josh Dawsey of Poltico.com report that “White House seeks 90-day delay in Obamacare subsidy suit.”
“The First Batch of Decisions Each Term”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from attorney Scott J. Forster:
About 8 years ago, I sent you an email that you published in your site. It said “I got a cert grant because of your website.” I saw a case referenced that I used which led to a direct split on a sentencing issue which the Supreme Court took up. My case is Dean v. US 556 U.S. 568. (2009). I was able to argue at SCOTUS because of seeing the case on your website. I cannot thank you enough.
Scott, thank you for taking the time to remind me of that wonderful story. Although “How Appealing” cannot promise to deliver a cert. grant for each and every reader, I’m so glad it worked out for you! I will post another reader email tomorrow.
“Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court finds the GOP packed black voters into two North Carolina districts to help win more House seats.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court ruling wipes out Republican-drawn House districts in N.C.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Districts; Court finds districts drawn to disadvantage black voters; Justice Clarence Thomas sides with liberal wing.”
Andrea Noble of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects North Carolina congressional district maps.”
Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “U.S. Supreme Court agrees NC lawmakers created illegal congressional district maps in 2011.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tosses Republican-drawn North Carolina voting districts.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rejects North Carolina Congressional Districts.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina congressional district maps.”
Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Throws Out Two GOP-Drawn Congressional Districts As Unconstitutional; The court concluded that North Carolina Districts 1 and 12 amounted to so-called ‘racial gerrymanders.’”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Says Race Was Improperly Used In Creating North Carolina Congressional Districts; Justice Clarence Thomas joins the more liberal justices in striking down two district maps.”
Scott Bland and Elena Schneider of Politico.com report that “Supreme Court rules North Carolina congressional districts unconstitutional.”
And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Supreme Court on 5-3 Vote Affirms NC Racial Gerrymandering Case, with Thomas in Majority and Roberts in Dissent.”
“Supreme Court Limits Where Patent-Infringement Cases Can Be Filed; Decision could limit venue-shopping in patent cases”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices make it easier for companies to defend patent cases.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court tightens patent suit rules in blow to ‘patent trolls.’”
And Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News report that “U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Curbs on Locations of Patent Suits.”
“Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves key campaign finance restriction in place.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds ‘soft money’ limits; Gorsuch, Thomas disagree.”
“U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Free Press mug shot case”: Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press has this report.
And The Associated Press reports that “Justices won’t hear appeal over release of federal mug shots.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.
1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16-254. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. And Justice Thomas issued the opinion for a unanimous Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Breaking: #SCOTUS Declines Soft Money Case; Thomas and Gorsuch Would Vote to Hear.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”
“Supreme Court offers rare glimpse into life of a top justice”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this report.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case and summarily affirmed in a direct appeal case. In the direct appeal case, the order states that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch would have noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.