“The Supreme Court Recognizes Victims’ Rights in Death Penalty Cases; The Court acknowledges that crime victims and their families have important interests in the timely enforcement of capital sentences — and encourages lower courts to prevent ‘dilatory’ tactics”: Paul Cassell — who served as co-counsel on the only non-government amicus brief filed in support of the State of Missouri in this death penalty case — has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
As you might imagine, the comments to the post are themselves rather interesting.
“The anti-death-penalty movement just got a cold dose of Gorsuch”: Columnist Scott Martelle has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.
“The Supreme Court’s Twisted Devotion to the Death Penalty: The conservative justices’ convoluted opinions are undermining the court’s legitimacy more than any confirmation battle could.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.
“Wisconsin Supreme Court race still too close to call”: Riley Vetterkind of The Wisconsin State Journal has this report.
You can view updated election results via this link.
“The Moral Failure of the Justices’ Death Penalty Debate: The Supreme Court’s most recent opinion is a literal horror show that avoids the key problem with executions.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Trump’s New Legal Strategy Is to Lose and Then Blame the Courts”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“The Supreme Court’s Bitter Feud Over a Controversial Death Penalty Case Boils Over Into the Public”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“It’s Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court Now, Not Anthony Kennedy’s; Monday’s 5-4 decision is a foreboding omen of the rancor yet to come”: Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at Politico Magazine.
“In census and Obamacare amicus briefs, Big Law sides against Trump”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“In prelude to nuclear option, Senate rejects speeding up confirmation of nominees; McConnell now expected to move forward with only Republican support”: Niels Lesniewski of Roll Call has an article that begins, “The Senate inched closer Tuesday to Republicans using the ‘nuclear option’ to slash the time for debate on the vast majority of judicial and executive nominations.”
In today’s mail: I received an advance copy of Stephen Budiansky new book, “Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, and Ideas.” The book’s official publication date is May 28, 2019.
Based on Budiansky’s recent, very interesting “SCOTUSblog” interview with Ronald Collins, I am very much looking forward to reading this book.
“A Little-Noticed Judicial Election Could Determine Wisconsin’s Political Course for a Decade; The GOP-backed candidate has alienated some Republican allies with his extreme anti-LGBT stances”: Ari Berman of Mother Jones has this report.
“Effort to historically zone Texas Supreme Court justice’s house narrowly fails at HLC”: Jessi Devenyns of the Austin Monitor has this report.
“Court packing would destroy judicial independence”: Thomas Jipping has this essay online at The Detroit News.
“Trump reshapes long-liberal 9th Circuit, as Republican-appointed judges gain seats on court”: Gregg Re of Fox News has this report.
“The Supreme Court Changes Its Mind About Clergy on Death Row; The justices have a belated but welcome recognition of the rights of inmates facing capital punishment”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Census officials await Supreme Court decision on whether to add, drop citizenship question”: Deborah Barfield Berry and Richard Wolf of USA Today have this report.
“The Supreme Court Must Rule That Juries Can’t Sentence a Man to Death Because He’s Gay”: Daniel S. Harawa has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court justices feuding openly over death penalty”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.
“Another Round of Strange Bedfellows on Severability in Texas v. U.S.; Another amicus brief on severability and the Affordable Care Act”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about an amicus brief in which he joined.
“Siloed Justices and the Law/Politics Divide”: Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this guest post at the “Balkinization” blog, the first entry in a symposium about a new book from Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum titled “The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court.”
“‘Super-adding’ to Baze: The decision in Bucklew v Precythe.” Sean A. Smith has this post at his “Ikuta Matata” blog.
“Repackaging Discrimination”: At the “Take Care” blog, Leah Litman and Hetali Lodaya have a post that begins, “The Trump administration has been making a noteworthy argument to justify one of its discriminatory policies against transgender persons — specifically, the ban on military service by many transgender persons.”
“Why SCOTUS Must Hear the Census Case on the Merits”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog about an amicus brief he filed in that case.
“Is John Roberts Moderate? His hesitations about moving the Court to the right are only a question of pace.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
