“Supreme Court rules police don’t need warrant to use blood drawn from unconscious drunk driver”: Richard Wolf and Kristine Phillips of USA Today have this report.
Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “In Wisconsin case, U.S. Supreme Court says police can draw blood from unconscious drivers without warrant.”
Ed Treleven of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin drunken driving case may affect similar cases awaiting ruling.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court OKs blood draws from unconscious drivers without warrants.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules cops can draw blood from unconscious drivers.”
And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Gives Green Light on Warrantless Blood Draw.”
“McConnell willing to vote on new Dem president’s Supreme Court nominee”: Burgess Everett of Politico has this report.
And Alexander Bolton of The Hill reports that “McConnell pledges to work with Democratic president on Supreme Court vacancy.”
“The latest chapter in the Gorsuch-Kavanaugh saga is the most revealing yet”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Top conservative calls for impeachment of Chief Justice Roberts”: Stephen Dinan and Dave Boyer of The Washington Times have this report.
And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat; In 5-4 decisions on federal rules and citizenship question, chief justice joins court liberals and frustrates the right.”
“Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court puts census citizenship question on hold.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court refuses to approve citizenship question on 2020 census.”
Brent Kendall, Jess Bravin, and Janet Adamy of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Blocks Citizenship Question From 2020 Census for Now; Trump administration’s official explanation for adding the question ‘seems to have been contrived,’ according to the majority opinion.”
Richard Wolf and Kate Cimini of USA Today report that “Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question for now, demands more fact-finding at lower court.”
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court halts citizenship question on 2020 census.”
Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “High court keeps citizenship question off census for now.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Trump fumes as Supreme Court blocks census citizenship question.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Thwarts Trump on Census, Prompting Him to Seek Delay.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court tosses citizenship question from 2020 census forms, a victory for Democratic states; The court found that while the Commerce Department has a right to reinstate the question, it did not provide an adequate justification for doing so.”
Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN report that “Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question in setback for Trump admin.”
Ronn Blitzer and Adam Shaw of Fox News report that “Trump seeks 2020 census delay after Supreme Court blocks citizenship question.”
Josh Gerstein and Ted Hesson of Politico report that “Supreme Court deals blow to Trump’s push to add citizenship question to census.”
Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules against Trump on census citizenship question.”
In commentary, Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial titled “The Supreme Court Is Not Buying the Census Excuses; It noted a ‘disconnect’ between the Trump administration’s stated reason for including a citizenship question on the census form and the actual rationale for doing so.”
Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Contradictions of John Roberts: The Chief draws a road map for politicizing administrative law.”
Online at The New York Times, Emily Bazelon has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Isn’t as Naïve as Trump Hoped; The chief justice didn’t buy the explanation for putting a citizenship question on the census.”
Online at The Los Angeles Times, law professor Leah Litman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s census ruling is a victory for truth and the rule of the law.”
Online at Politico Magazine, law professor Richard Primus has an essay titled “John Roberts Just Called Out the Trump Administration for Lying; Will he have the stomach to do it again?”
Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Roberts Won’t Let Trump Get Away With a Lie in Census Case; The Supreme Court blocks the citizenship question for now, but might allow it if the Commerce Department is honest about its motives.”
Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “John Roberts Rejects the Census Citizenship Question Because Trump Officials Lied About It.”
And also online at Slate, law professor Richard L Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has a jurisprudence essay titled “Donald Trump Is Promising to Fight the Census Case. That Might Actually Work.”
“After 14 Years, Chief Justice Roberts Takes Charge”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.
“Chief Justice John Roberts is exercising the power he’s craved”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“Supreme Court clerk isn’t a lowly position. It’s a pathway to power.” Columnist Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.
“Supreme Court to rehear Creek reservation case in the next term”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.
And Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World reports that “Supreme Court asks for more argument in ‘Indian Country’ death penalty case, to go on court’s fall calendar.”
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘With respect but deep sadness.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in four argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2 & 3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, together with Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument in Rucho via this link and in Lamone via this link.
4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966. Justice Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer issued an opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Lastly, the Court has announced that Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107, will be reargued next Term. You can access this Term’s argument of the case via this link.
“A momentous change may be upon the Supreme Court”: Law professors Leah Litman and Seth Davis have this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Newest woman on state high court chose Georgia over D.C. legal career; Justice Warren guest speaker for Statesboro Rotary”: Al Hackle of The Statesboro (Ga.) Herald has this report.
