“Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules jury trial required in some supervised release revocations.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch again sides with liberals in criminal case.”
Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Gorsuch sides with liberal bloc once more, in sex offender case.”
Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute.”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Over Alito’s Fuming Dissent, Gorsuch and the Liberals Protect the Right to Trial by Jury.”
Also online at Slate, law professor Leah Litman has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch Is No Friend to Criminal Defendants.”
And at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine, Ed Kilgore has a post titled “Gorsuch Gives SCOTUS Liberals a Win in Two Criminal-Law Cases.”
“John Roberts Isn’t the Conservative You Thought He Was; The chief justice joins with liberal justices out of respect for precedent; Does this tell us how he might vote on abortion?” Jay Michaelson has this essay online at The Daily Beast.
“Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor Law”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Alcohol-License Regulations; At issue were rules requiring retailers to be state residents for two years.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Tennessee liquor retail regulations.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Voids Residency Rule for Liquor Store Owners.”
Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN report that “Supreme Court strikes down Tennessee residency requirement for liquor licenses.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hands Total Wine, Other Out-Of-State Liquor Retailers A Big Win.”
And in commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Sobriety About the Commerce Clause: The High Court strikes down a protectionist state liquor law.”
“The Supreme Court should adhere to precedent. Unless it’s bad precedent.” Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Supreme Court Limits Agency Power, a Goal of the Right”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules in favor of federal agency expertise on ambiguous regulations.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Leaves U.S. Agencies’ Power Intact, With Qualifications; Ruling allows federal agencies to keep interpreting regulations but chips away at that precedent.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court won’t strip federal agencies of all power to interpret regulations, a top priority of conservatives.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court upholds precedents on deference to agencies.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court chips away at federal agency power.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rebuffs Businesses, Won’t Topple Regulation Precedent.”
Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court gives Marine seeking VA benefits second chance in agency power case.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Justices uphold precedent backing government regulators.”
Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity.”
In commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Case of Excessive Deference: Chief Justice Roberts joins the liberals in deferring to regulators.”
Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s Administrative Law War Previews Abortion Battle; When Chief Justice Roberts rules in favor of a long-standing precedent, it should be headline news.”
And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Kagan just scored a shocking victory over the forces of anti-government nihilism; She held the line.”
“Clarence Thomas’s Unprecedented America: The Justice has always shown a disregard for precedent, but with a shift in Supreme Court personnel, undoing progress could be the law of the land.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.
“Supreme Court to issue census, electoral map rulings on Thursday”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court set to issue most high-profile decisions of term.”
“Supreme Court Justices Continue To Struggle With Precedent”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“U.S. Supreme Court’s business-friendly reputation takes a hit”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court in its term that concludes this week was not quite as business friendly as it has been in recent years, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh writing a pivotal one of the batch of rulings that defied corporate interests.”
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: What the Constitution means to me.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Is There Racist Intent Behind the Census Citizenship Question?” Cristian Farias has this post online at The New Yorker.
“A Picasso sold during Nazi flight can stay at New York’s Met: court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“Jeffrey Epstein plea deal must stand, prosecutors tell sex abuse victims”: Julie K. Brown has this front page article in today’s edition of The Miami Herald.
“Lawyer Draws Outrage for Defending Lack of Toothbrushes in Border Detention”: Manny Fernandez has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Minnesota Supreme Court Holds That Nonmedia Speakers Are Fully Protected by First Amendment; Prior Minnesota precedents had said that some First Amendment protections against defamation liability applied only to media speakers”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog about a ruling that the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued today.
“The End Game Possibilities for the Census Case”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”
“The Supreme Court Should Clean Up How Justices Are Noted as Joining Parts of Opinions”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”
“Liberals Keep Narrow Window to Win After Supreme Court Makeover”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in three argued cases.
1. Justice Neil Ml Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and issued an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined in United States v. Haymond, No. 17-1672. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Kagan announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in large part in Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15. Chief Justice Roberts issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined in full and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh joined in part, concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion, in which Justice Alito joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. And Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, No. 18-96. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Rumors of the Non-Delegation Doctrine’s Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated”: Peter J. Wallison has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“The fight over Trump’s travel ban continues a year after Supreme Court ruling”: Danae King has this front page article in today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
“Supreme Court conservatives’ move to overturn precedents raises questions on Roe v. Wade”: Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News has this report.
