“Trump’s Travel Ban Is Upheld by Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear will have this front page article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban, bolstering president’s power to block new arrivals.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s travel ban against majority-Muslim countries.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin will have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban; Latitude to restrict arrivals tops concerns over what dissent calls an anti-Muslim bias.”
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban in landmark win for White House; Says Trump’s tweets didn’t poison his action.”
Nina Wu of The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that “Hawaii leaders react to Supreme Court decision on Trump travel ban.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court OKs Trump’s travel ban, rejects Muslim bias claim.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court upholds Trump travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban, Giving President Win on Signature Issue.”
Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds travel ban.”
Josh Gerstein and Ted Hesson of Politico report that “Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban; The 5-4 decision marks the conclusion of a protracted legal fight over the ban, which critics argue stems from the president’s discriminatory attitude toward Muslims.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban; The 5–4 majority decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg and Domenico Montanaro had an audio segment titled “In Big Win For White House, Supreme Court Upholds President Trump’s Travel Ban.”
“The Big National Injunction Case: A decision with major implications for the national injunction — not Trump v. Hawaii but Gill v. Whitford.” Samuel Bray has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Mitch McConnell’s high court reigns supreme again on Trump travel ban”: Thomas Novelly of The Louisville Courier Journal has this report.
“Supreme Court Backs Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers in Free Speech Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says crisis pregnancy centers do not have to provide women abortion information.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for faith-based pregnancy centers, blocks California disclosure law.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules against California law targeting anti-abortion pregnancy centers.”
Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Casts Doubt on California Disclosure Law on Abortion Availability; Court says one part of law burdens free speech, another provision is likely unconstitutional.”
Alex Swoyer and Bradford Richardson of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules law requiring pro-life centers to promote abortion is illegal.”
Kate Irby of McClatchy DC reports that “Court rejects California law requiring abortion information at pregnancy centers.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court rules CA can’t force antiabortion clinics to disclose options.”
Casey Tolan of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Supreme Court deals California back-to-back losses in travel ban, pregnancy center cases.”
Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “High court rules against Calif. crisis pregnancy center law.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court blocks California law on anti-abortion centers.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Blocks California Pregnancy-Clinic Disclosure Law.”
Ariane de Vogue and Clare Foran of CNN report that “Supreme Court sides with faith-based pregnancy centers in free speech case.”
Victoria Colliver of Politico reports that “Supreme Court sides with crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law.”
Emma Green of The Atlantic reports that “The Supreme Court Hands a Win to the Pro-Life Movement; Conservative justices decided in favor of crisis-pregnancy centers in NIFLA v. Becerra on First Amendment grounds.”
Chris Geidner, Ema O’Connor, and Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News report that “The Supreme Court Just Axed Part Of A California Law That Requires Crisis Pregnancy Centers To Post Abortion Information; The case brought arguments over free speech, yet again, to the abortion debate.”
Brandi Buchman and Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service report that “California Pregnancy-Center Rules Unravel at Supreme Court.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg and Sarah McCammon had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Sides With California Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers.”
“SCOTUS Crisis Pregnancy Center Case Shows Originalist Justices Are Originalist Except When They’re Not”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at “Dorf on Law.”
“One Really Good Thing in the Supreme Court’s Travel-Ban Ruling: Korematsu Is Gone.” Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.
“Why was Korematsu wrong?” Joseph Fishkin has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.
“Appeals court limits once-nationwide sanctuary cities injunction to Chicago”: Jon Seidel of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report.
Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News has posted on Twitter today’s Seventh Circuit order granting limited rehearing en banc at this link.
“The Court Ruled Correctly on the Travel Ban”: Law professor Peter H. Schuck has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Four Things to Know About the Travel Ban Opinions: Breyer’s careful dissent stands as one of the finest in Supreme Court history.” Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“Bigoted and Feckless, the Travel Ban Is Pure Trump”: The New York Times has published this editorial.
“The Supreme Court Rises Above: Five Justices defend the Constitution against anti-Trump passions.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.
“NIFLA v. Becerra and Speech Compulsions: Today’s Supreme Court decision adds to the law — and the uncertainty — about when the First Amendment bans the government from requiring speech.” Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“A New Korematsu: The travel ban ruling will be the Roberts court’s shameful legacy.” Law professor Jed Shugerman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Anthony Kennedy Stands Down: The justice’s Trump-friendly votes on the travel ban and crisis pregnancy centers show he’s done playing the role of the wise centrist.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: The ‘court of history’ is in session.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Mitch McConnell Reaps The Benefits Of His Stolen Supreme Court Seat; The court narrowly upheld Trump’s travel ban and the rights of anti-abortion centers — thanks to Neil Gorsuch”: Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost has this report.
“A Decision That Will Live in Infamy: It will take generations for the Supreme Court to live down its approval of Trump’s travel ban.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “A Failure of Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court squanders a chance to check a reckless president.”
“Abortion and Travel Ban Rulings Are Victory for G.O.P. Tactics on Gorsuch”: Elizabeth Dias and Sydney Ember of The New York Times have this report.
“Did Justice Anthony Kennedy Just Signal His Retirement? The depressing defeatism of Kennedy’s work this term indicates his time on the court could be coming to an end.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“In Becerra, Conservative Christians Win With Liberal Legal Arguments”: Andrew R. Lewis has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Grizzly shooting case headed to 9th Circuit”: Patrick Reilly of The Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana had this report back in March 2018. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision awarding the defendant a new trial.
Ted Frank achieves another class action settlement objector-related victory in the Seventh Circuit: Ted is targeting so-called “objector blackmail” in today’s ruling. Although Ted has yet to prevail on the merits, today he achieved an important procedural victory that will allow the merits of his claim to be resolved. Chief Judge Diane P. Wood wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.
“On January 14, 2013, appellant-plaintiff Shapiro made a FOIA request seeking FBI records ‘relating or referring to the deceased person Aaron H. Swartz.'” So explains an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.
“Unchecked Power Is Still Dangerous No Matter What the Court Says”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Another Antitrust Bust: American Express gets vindication at the Supreme Court.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“The Supreme Court Devastates Antitrust Law”: Law professor Tim Wu has this essay online at The New York Times.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Saumel A. Alito, Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii, Np. 17-965. Justices Kennedy and Thomas each issued a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Appeals court upholds NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out one season before playing”: Jonathan Bilyk of the Cook County Record has this report.
And online at Forbes, Darren Heitner has a post titled “7th Circuit Sides With NCAA, Finds Year-In-Residence Rule Presumptively Procompetitive.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.
“Justices Grant Three Cases From One SCOTUS Veteran”: Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report, in which I am quoted.
First Circuit reverses district court order compelling arbitration of claims that Uber violated a Massachusetts consumer-protection statute by knowingly imposing fictitious or inflated fees: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
“U.S. Supreme Court denies Brendan Dassey’s appeal in ‘Making a Murderer’ case”: Alison Dirr and Andy Thompson of The Post-Crescent of Appleton, Wisconsin have this report.
“How the Supreme Court is changing the rules on voting”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voting Maps That Were Called Discriminatory”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Texas redistricting a lower court said discriminated against black and Hispanic voters.”
Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds Texas District Maps Previously Ruled Discriminatory; Court also declines for now to rule on challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map, which GOP-run legislature drew to produce lopsided wins for Republican candidates.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds most Texas election districts over charges of racial discrimination.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds Texas congressional map as legal.”
Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Texas does not have to redraw most political districts.”
Sarah Smith of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “A Fort Worth state House district is racially gerrymandered, Supreme Court rules.”
James Barragán of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Supreme Court upholds most of Texas voting maps that lower court deemed racially discriminatory.”
Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court gives Texas partial victory in racial gerrymandering case, state must redraw one district.”
Mark Sherman and Paul J. Weber of The Associated Press report that “Supreme Court accepts Texas voting maps in blow to Democrats.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court favors Republicans in gerrymandering cases.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Largely Backs Texas on Disputed Voting Districts.”
Ariane de Vogue and Eli Watkins of CNN report that “Supreme Court allows most disputed maps in Texas, NC gerrymandering cases to be used.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court sends back N.C. gerrymandering case, mostly rejects Texas map challenge; The justices had already passed on chances to issue sweeping redistricting decisions in Maryland and Wisconsin cases.”
Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Texas Tested A Strategy For Discriminating Against Voters. It Worked.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Ruled That Only One Of Several Challenged Texas Districts Is An ‘Impermissible Racial Gerrymander’; The 5–4 decision prompted a strong rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.”
Alex Ura of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules Texas lawmakers did not intentionally discriminate in drawing political maps; The court also upheld 10 of 11 districts that had been flagged as problematic.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Upholds Texas’ Congressional, State Legislative Maps.”
“Justices Send Gay Rights and Voting Cases Back to Lower Courts”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has articles headlined “Justices decline to rule on florist who refused wedding services to same-sex couple” and “Supreme Court sends case on North Carolina gerrymandering back to lower court.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court puts off further rulings on partisan gerrymandering and religion vs. same-sex weddings.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today has articles headlined “First cake, now flowers: Supreme Court gives florist who refused to serve gay wedding a new hearing” and “Supreme Court defers new case from North Carolina challenging partisan election maps.”
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court orders Washington to reconsider same-sex marriage First Amendment case.” And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court holds off on North Carolina partisan gerrymander case.”
Christine Willmsen of The Seattle Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hands Richland florist’s gay-wedding case back to Washington courts.”
Kristin M. Kraemer and Annette Cary of The Tri-City Herald of Kennewick, Washington report that “U.S. Supreme Court sends Richland florist case back to state.”
Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Supreme Court sends NC partisan gerrymander case back for more arguments.”
Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Justices won’t hear case of anti-gay marriage florist.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court ducks dispute over florist who refused gay wedding request.” And Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme court sidesteps North Carolina dispute over Republican election maps.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Orders New Look at Florist’s Appeal on Gay Weddings” and “Supreme Court Orders New Look at North Carolina Gerrymandering Case.”
Ariane de Vogue and Eli Watkins of CNN report that “Supreme Court won’t take up case of florist who refused service for same-sex couple.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “SCOTUS punts in another fight over denial of services for same-sex wedding.”
And Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News reports that “This Christian Florist Who Turned Away A Gay Couple Will Get Another Chance To Win, The Supreme Court Says; Lawyers for Barronelle Stutzman contend state officials were hostile to her Christian faith.”
