Programming note: On Wednesday, I will be traveling to Fayetteville, Arkansas, where on Thursday I will be participating as a speaker at the 2019 Justice Donald L. Corbin Appellate Symposium. As a result, additional posts will not appear here until Wednesday evening. You can learn more about the 2019 Corbin Appellate Symposium in this earlier post.
At 10 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more rulings in argued cases. Once the Court posts those decisions online, you can access them via this link.
As always while I am traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.
“Bristol-Myers, Pfizer defeat Eliquis bleeding risk lawsuits on appeal”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“White House Obamacare reversal made over Cabinet objections; The heads of the Justice Department and Health and Human Services Department opposed the unexpected switch in legal tactics”: Eliana Johnson and Burgess Everett of Politico have this report.
“Justices Display Divisions in New Cases on Voting Maps Warped by Politics”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Brett Kavanaugh the new player as Supreme Court returns to partisan gerrymandering.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justice Kavanaugh may hold swing vote on partisan gerrymandering.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall will have an article headlined “Conservative Justices Hesitant About Judicial Remedy for Partisan Gerrymandering; Majority suggests problems are better solved by voter initiatives, state constitutions, politicians.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court divided on solution for heavily gerrymandered districts.”
Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tackles Maryland gerrymandering case that’s split Democrats and Republicans.”
Brian Murphy of McClatchy DC reports that “Supreme Court appears split in NC gerrymander case.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court questions courts’ role in partisan redistricting.”
Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court divided on partisan electoral maps.”
Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Justices Question Suits Over Partisan Gerrymandering.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court appears likely to leave issue of partisan gerrymandering to states; The court heard challenges to congressional maps that locked in an advantage for Republicans in North Carolina and that gave an extra seat to Democrats in Maryland.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court conservatives question challenges of partisan gerrymandering.”
Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court warily weighs partisan gerrymandering.”
Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Still Appears Wary Of Doing Something About Partisan Gerrymandering; The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a closely watched case Tuesday that could have political consequences for decades.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Justices divided in cases revisiting partisan gerrymandering.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Kavanaugh Seems Conflicted On Partisan Gerrymandering At Supreme Court Arguments.”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Kavanaugh Could Join the Liberal Justices to Rein In Partisan Gerrymandering. Seriously!”
And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “An unlikely alliance on the Supreme Court could end two of the nation’s worst gerrymanders; Will Kavanaugh and Kagan join forces to take down gerrymanders in North Carolina and Maryland?”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422.
And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s Supreme Court oral argument in Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726.
“Supreme Court Rules Against Sailors Injured in Cole Attack”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “USS Cole victims suffer setback at Supreme Court.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court tosses $315 million award in USS Cole lawsuit.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court backs Sudan over American sailors in USS Cole bombing case.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Tosses $315 Million Bombing Award Against Sudan.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims in Sudan lawsuit.”
And Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims, backs Sudan in bombing lawsuit.”
“Businesses Target Scalia Opinion in Supreme Court Regulatory Fight”: Greg Stohr and Jennifer A Dlouhy of Bloomberg News have an article that begins, “A U.S. Supreme Court ruling written by conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia has become an unlikely target for business groups. And now the court may be poised to overturn it.”
“Bridget Bade, Trump nominee and ASU alumna, confirmed to 9th Circuit”: Alexis Egeland of The Arizona Republic has this report.
And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release titled “Senate Confirms US Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
This afternoon, the U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade to the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 78-to-21.
“Alaska Moose Hunter Wins Second Ruling at Supreme Court; Decision, which followed revival of suit, says federal government can’t stop him from using his hovercraft to reach hunting grounds; justices also toss $314 million terror-related judgment against Sudan”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.
Dan Joling of The Associated Press reports that “Alaska moose-hunter can ‘rev up’ his hovercraft, court rules.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Alaska moose hunter can ‘rev up his hovercraft,’ Supreme Court rules.”
Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules Alaska man can hunt moose on hovercraft.”
And Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire reports that “Moose hunter can use his hovercraft.”
“President Trump can block Twitter users, Department of Justice lawyer argues”: Stephen Rex Brown of The New York Daily News has this report.
William Cummings of USA Today reports that “When Trump blocks users on Twitter, he does it himself, DOJ lawyer says.”
Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court tilts against Trump in Twitter fight.”
Brendan Pierson of Reuters has an article headlined “Can Trump block Twitter users whose views he dislikes? U.S. Appeals Court skeptical.”
Chris Dolmetsch of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump’s Move to Throw Out Twitter-Blocking Suit Scrutinized.”
Erica Orden of CNN reports that “Trump tweets in official capacity, but blocking users is a personal matter, DOJ argues in court.”
And Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News Service reports that “Trump, Ever-Tweeting, Makes Curious Case for Privacy.”
“NC abortion law is unconstitutional, federal court rules”: Will Doran of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.
Emery P. Dalesio of The Associated Press reports that “North Carolina’s 20-week abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.”
And Jonathan Allen of Reuters reports that “Federal judge ends North Carolina ban on abortions after 20 weeks.”
“Can President Trump block his critics on Twitter? Federal appeals court weighs that issue.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report on an appeal argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
You can access the oral argument audio via this link (33.1 MB mp3 audio file).
“Do agencies have the final say on regs?” Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court is gearing up for arguments in a case that could change a key tenet of administrative law: the degree of deference federal agencies get from the courts. It’s a wonky but important issue that arises often in environmental litigation, meaning court watchers from industry, academia and advocacy groups alike are closely tracking the Wednesday showdown in Kisor v. Wilkie.”
“Is Justice Kavanaugh in Play in the Partisan Gerrymandering Cases? Or is that Too ‘Big’ of a ‘Lift’?” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”
“The Anti-Constitutionality of Court-Packing”: Neil Siegel has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.
“Trump’s Unyielding Religious Exemptions from the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement Are Unconstitutional”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.
“Supreme Court shows divisions over gerrymandering; Roberts, Kavanaugh appear conflicted”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
“Democrats Pivot Hard to Health Care After Trump Moves to Strike Down Affordable Care Act”: Robert Pear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times have this report.
“St. Joan Antida High School sues Milwaukee Public Schools over student busing”: Back in March 2017, Erin Richards of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an article that begins, “A Milwaukee Catholic high school is suing Milwaukee Public Schools for denying busing to 70 students who should qualify for district-funded transportation under state law, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.”
Yesterday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this decision in that case.
Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett joined. And Milwaukee-based Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes issued a dissenting opinion.
“Ford Wins Appeal of Sudden Acceleration Class Suit”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Christian Nationalism and the Bladensburg Cross”: Caroline Mala Corbin has this post at the “Take Care” blog.
“Trump’s Twitter habits are affecting how local politicians behave online”: Ann E. Marimow has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
“Unanimous Juries and Incorporation of the Bill of Rights: Unanimous juries (like the ban on excessive fines) might be an easy case; but at some point we will need a theory.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Trump Officials Broaden Attack on Health Law, Arguing Courts Should Reject All of It”: Robert Pear has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Isaac Stanley-Becker of The Washington Post reports that “Trump administration asks court to completely invalidate Obama’s Affordable Care Act.”
Ken Alltucker and Brad Heath of USA Today have an article headlined “The end for Obamacare? Trump administration says it will ask a court to throw out entire health law.”
Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Justice Department escalates fight against Obamacare with unconstitutional determination.”
Scott Malone of Reuters reports that “Trump doubles down on Obamacare fight, asks court to overturn law.”
Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Asks Courts to Erase Obamacare in Risky 2020 Election Move.”
Ariane de Vogue and Tami Luhby of CNN report that “Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.” And Chris Cillizza of CNN has a news analysis headlined “Donald Trump just made sure health care will decide the 2020 election.”
Allan Smith of NBC News has an article headlined “‘All-out war’ on health care: Trump admin, Dems resume fight over ObamacareThe Trump administration backs striking the law as House Democrats unveil legislation to shore it up.”
Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News reports that “Trump administration backs total overturn of Obamacare, will support states challenging the law.”
Dan Diamond of Politico reports that “In shift, Trump administration backs judge’s ruling that would kill Obamacare.”
Jonathan Cohn of HuffPost reports that “Now Trump Wants Judges To Throw Out The Entire Affordable Care Act; Previously the administration said it would be fine to leave some of the law in place.”
Peter Sullivan of The Hill reports that “Justice Department sides with court ruling ObamaCare invalid.”
Dylan Scott of Vox reports that “The Trump administration wants all of Obamacare overturned by the courts; DOJ is escalating its legal assault against the health care law, arguing the whole statute is unconstitutional.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” David Greene and Alison Kodjak had an audio segment titled “Trump Administration Moves Forward In Attempt To Invalidate Affordable Care Act.”
And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Trump Justice Department sides with court ruling that would invalidate the Affordable Care Act.”
“Steinle parents can’t sue SF for refusal to tell immigrant officials of shooter’s release”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “Kate Steinle case: Dismissal of parents’ suit against San Francisco is upheld.”
Christina Maxouris of CNN reports that “Kate Steinle’s parents can’t sue ‘sanctuary city’ for failing to tell ICE about shooter’s release.”
And Richard Gonzales of NPR reports that “Appeals Court Says Parents Can’t Sue San Francisco Over Immigrant Who Killed Daughter.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
“Supreme Court Set to Again Weigh Voting Maps Warped by Politics”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “The Supreme Court takes on gerrymandering. A cottage industry wants to prove it’s gone too far.”
And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “The Supreme Court Takes Another Look At Partisan Redistricting.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.
1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 17-949. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, No. 16-1094. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Today is the official launch date for Joan Biskupic’s new book, “The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts.” To commemorate the occasion, at CNN, Biskupic has an article headlined “Where John Roberts is unlikely to compromise.”
