“Justices to hear court appointments case”: Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has an article that begins, “The Florida Supreme Court said Friday it will hear arguments this fall in a case that could help shape the future of the court. The Supreme Court scheduled arguments for Nov. 1 in a battle about whether Gov. Rick Scott will have the authority to appoint as many as three new justices as he leaves office in January 2019.”
“Support piling up in Arlene’s Flowers request for Supreme Court review”: Annette Cary of The Tri-City Herald of Kennewick, Washington has this report.
“18 inmates to get execution dates after California Supreme Court ruling”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
“Kenosha schools ask U.S. Supreme Court to take up transgender bathroom issue”: Annysa Johnson of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.
“AmEx Defends Appeals Court Win to Supreme Court”: Liz Crampton and Eleanor Tyler of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Cash Bail’s Lonely Defender”: This editorial appeared in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Coach Prays, Ninth Circuit Says No — Blame Supreme Court Conservatives; In 2006, five justices restricted the free-speech rights of public employees; in 2017, we see the consequences”: David French has this essay online at National Review.
“Critics: Trump pardon his latest affront against judiciary.” Darlene Superville of The Associated Press has this report.
“Supreme Court 2016 Statutory Term in Review: Purposively Interpreting Statutes That Don’t Say Much in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson.” Asher Steinberg has this post at his blog, “The Narrowest Grounds.”
“After losses on voting laws and districting, Texas turns to Supreme Court”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
“The Court’s Most Cited Decisions of 2016”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“How Will the Supreme Court Respond to the Arpaio Pardon? Though its major import is President Trump’s official endorsement of racist discrimination in law enforcement, a flagrant contempt for judges is the subtext.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Arpaio Pardon Is a Bad Sign for the Mueller Investigation; Trump has always wanted to stifle judicial oversight; Now he’s shown he will.”
At his “Impeachable Offenses?” blog, law professor Frank O. Bowman, III has a post titled “Pardoning Arpaio: The first verifiable impeachable offense.”
And at his “Dorf on Law” blog, Michael Dorf has a post titled “The Arpaio Pardon Through the Lens of Trump Exceptionalism.”