“Pa. courts must prepare to operate on a ‘much broader’ basis as COVID-19 crisis wanes: Supreme Court.” Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.
Laurie Mason Schroeder of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “Public and press to get more access to courts during coronavirus closure, with steps taken to avoid spread of COVID-19.”
And Tony Rhodin of The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania reports that “Your state court appeal is about to go virtual in Pennsylvania, Palmer Township’s Jack Panella says.”
You can view today’s order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at this link.
“Family of Lorain County high school wrestler wants Amazon to pay for role in teen’s caffeine powder overdose death”: Kaylee Remington of The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently had this preview of a case scheduled for oral argument tomorrow before the Supreme Court of Ohio.
And Andrew Welsh-Huggins of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Caffeine bought online killed teen. But is Amazon at fault?”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has made available via this link the documents filed in the case.
“Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity”: Jay Schweikert has this post at the “Cato at Liberty” blog.
“Blind justice: No visual cues in high court phone cases.” Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have this report.
“The Washington Post, ACLU argue for the public’s right to see a judge’s opinion on encryption”: Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post has this report.
Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “Federal judges skeptical of DOJ bid to keep Facebook encryption ruling sealed.”
Joseph Menn of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court asks why Facebook encryption order should stay sealed.”
Edvard Pettersson of Bloomberg News reports that “Facebook Beat a 2018 Wiretap Case. The ACLU Wants to Know Why.”
And Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service reports that “ACLU, Washington Post Fight for Look at Sealed Ruling in Facebook Encryption Case.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of today’s oral argument.
“Younger vs. Older”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Appeals Court Reviews ‘Star Trek’/Dr. Seuss Mashup; The Ninth Circuit appears skeptical about a district judge’s decision to end a copyright lawsuit”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.
And Bianca Bruno of Courthouse News Service reports that “Seuss-Star Trek Copyright Battleship Makes Landing at Ninth Circuit.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of yesterday’s oral argument of this appeal.
The Guardian (UK) launches a series titled “Trump’s court takeover” examining “the historic pace and nature of Trump’s remaking of the federal courts and the conservative agenda it will usher in on a range of issues, from voting rights to climate and from healthcare to criminal justice”: Tom McCarthy of The Guardian (UK) has articles headlined “Trump’s judges: a revolution to create a new conservative America; The president’s judicial appointments have been a quieter project than most of his flamboyant presidency, but will have longer-lasting impacts on healthcare, voting rights, criminal justice and the climate” and “Why has Trump appointed so many judges — and how did he do it? Trump promised in 2016 to fill the courts with conservative judges — signaling to evangelical Christians and others he was a safe pick.”
And former U.S. District Judge Shira A Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.) has an essay titled “Trump’s judges are a giant step backward for America; After three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term.”
“Appeals court takes up Trump border wall and Donald McGahn subpoena cases”: Ann E. Marimow and Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post have this report.
Charlie Savage of The New York Times has an article headlined “May Congress Sue the Executive Branch? Court Hears Cases on Subpoena and Border Wall; A federal appeals court took up two cases testing whether the House can challenge a president in court.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “By Teleconference, Appeals Court Hears House’s McGahn and Border Wall Cases; Court to weigh when, if ever, the judiciary should settle disputes between the legislative and executive branches.”
Kristine Phillips and Richard Wolf of USA Today report that “Trump administration faces tough questions from federal court in separation of powers disputes with Congress.”
Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “Trump administration urges full appeals court to stay out of fight for Don McGahn testimony.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court seems to favor House in McGahn subpoena fight.”
Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe of Reuters report that “U.S. judges press Trump administration over subpoena fight.”
Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Subpoenas Are a ‘Joke’ Without Courts, Democrats Say.”
Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Judges grill Justice Department and Democrats over Congress’s power to sue the Executive Branch.” And Joan Biskupic of CNN has a news analysis headlined “Judges consider when to play referee in age of Trump.”
Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney of Politico report that “Judges worry Trump position on McGahn testimony could force Congress into extreme measures; The fight centers on one of the most urgent political and legal issues of Trump’s presidency.”
Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court grills Trump administration over McGahn case.” And John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Court weighs Democrats’ challenge to Trump wall funding.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Appeals court grapples with House power to sue over Trump moves; D.C. Circuit judges question administration reasoning on separation of powers.”
Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has an article headlined “Impeachment Is Over And There’s A Pandemic, But Congress’s Subpoena Fights With Trump Press On; The DC Circuit heard arguments in two cases about whether Congress is ever allowed to sue the executive branch.”
Megan Mineiro and Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service report that “En Banc DC Circuit Hears Separation-of-Powers Doubleheader; The full federal appeals court simultaneously heard arguments in two separate cases against the Trump administration.”
And in commentary, online at Slate, Ashwin Phatak has a jurisprudence essay titled “Are the Courts Finally Ready to Compel Don McGahn to Testify?”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has posted online on YouTube at this link the audio of today’s en banc oral arguments.
“After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference”: Amy Howe has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“The Overlooked Textual Evidence in the Title VII Cases: The Linguistic (and Therefore Textualist) Principle of Compositionality.” James Cleith Phillips has posted this essay online at SSRN.
“Courtroom access: Field trip diaries.” Katie Bart has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Press Release Regarding May Teleconference Arguments Order of Business”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Supreme Court issued this news release today.
“Supreme Court Rules for Insurers in $12 Billion Obamacare Case; In an 8-to-1 decision, the court said the government must shield insurers from losses under the Affordable Care Act”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules for insurance companies in Obamacare lawsuit seeking billions.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules insurers can collect $12 billion under Obamacare.”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “Supreme Court Rules Government Must Pay Insurers Under Affordable Care Act Program; Insurers cleared to seek roughly $12 billion under program in place during early implementation of 2010 health law.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court requires government to pay health insurers under Affordable Care Act.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules Congress must reimburse insurers for losses under Obamacare.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court rules insurers can collect $12B under health care law.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court tells U.S. government to pay insurers $12 billion under Obamacare.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Insurers on $12 Billion in Obamacare Payments.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules Congress must pay Obamacare insurers; The government had insisted it had no obligation to pay — which one lawyer said was ‘a massive government bait and switch.’”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Insurers can sue to collect billions in Obamacare dispute, Supreme Court rules.”
Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court rules government must pay insurers enrolled in ObamaCare program.”
Susannah Luthi of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rules government must pay billions to Obamacare insurers; The decision is a big win for health insurers who struggled in the health care law’s early years.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court parses words in appropriations powers case; The opinion has one main theme: The wording of appropriations riders matters.”
Nathaniel Weixel and John Kruzel of The Hill report that “Supreme Court says Congress must pay insurers billions under ObamaCare.”
Paul McLeod of BuzzFeed News reports that “Republicans Tried To Defund A Major Obamacare Program. Now The Supreme Court Says The Government Has To Pay Billions To Insurers.
In commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “ObamaCare’s Latest Taxpayer Beating; The Supreme Court says Congress must pay for risk-corridor losses.”
Online at The Los Angeles Times, business columnist Michael Hiltzik has an essay titled “Supreme Court overturns key GOP sabotage of Obamacare, granting insurers $12 billion.”
Also online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Jon Healey has an essay titled “The Supreme Court just restored another piece of Obamacare — years too late.”
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A Republican effort to sabotage Obamacare was just rejected by the Supreme Court; Maybe the judicial Obamacare wars are fading?“
“Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to New York City Gun Ordinance; Instead of ruling in its first Second Amendment case in a decade, the court found it moot after the city repealed the challenged regulation”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court dismisses anticipated New York gun rights case because the law in question has been rescinded.”
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court declines to make 2nd Amendment ruling in New York gun case.”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Sidesteps Decision on New York City Gun Regulations; The high court said it had no occasion to render a decision because the limits are no longer in effect.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sidesteps major Second Amendment case, a setback for NRA.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court dismisses challenge to NYC firearm rule.”
Stephen Rex Brown of The New York Daily News reports that “Supreme Court declines to rule on NYC gun regulations, outraging conservative justices.”
Priscilla DeGregory of The New York Post reports that “Supreme Court dismisses landmark gun rights case.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court tosses NY case that could have expanded gun rights.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sidesteps major gun rights ruling but more cases loom.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Scraps Gun Case After New York Changes Law.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court dodges N.Y. firearms case in defeat for gun rights advocates; The ordinance at issue said residents with the proper permits could take handguns outside their homes to city shooting ranges under certain conditions.”
Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court avoids new Second Amendment ruling, dealing blow to gun rights advocates.”
Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Alito dissent blasts NYC gun law, as Supreme Court punts on highly charged case.”
Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court declines to rule on its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade.”
Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has a report headlined “It’s Been A Decade Since The Supreme Court Ruled On Gun Rights. Kavanaugh And Other Conservative Justices Say It’s Time. The US Supreme Court on Monday decided not to hear a challenge to a New York City gun law, but four of the court’s conservative justices want the court to take up the Second Amendment again.”
Ephrat Livni of Quartz reports that “Dissenting justices claim Supreme Court was ‘manipulated’ in New York gun case.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on gun rights.”
Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “New York Gun Rights Case Tossed as Moot From Top Court.”
On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Dismisses A Gun Rights Case, Favors Insurance Companies.”
In commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled “The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights; The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats.”
And online at The Los Angeles Times, Scott Martelle has an essay titled “Supreme Court ducks a 2nd Amendment issue — for now.”
“Leo Strine, Delaware’s Colorful Corporate-Law Czar, Joins New York Firm; 56-year-old will advise Wachtell’s clients on mergers, litigation and other matters”: Liz Hoffman has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Georgia Can’t Copyright Its Entire State Code, the Supreme Court Rules; In a 5-to-4 ruling with unusual alliances, the court said that annotations cannot be copyrighted if they are the official work of state lawmakers”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin has an article headlined “Supreme Court says Georgia must provide official code free to public.”
Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law reports that “Georgia Copyright Loss at High Court Could Jolt Many States.”
Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica reports that “Supreme Court rules Georgia can’t put the law behind a paywall; The state of Georgia licensed the official copy of state law to LexisNexis.”
Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Rules States Can’t Copyright Annotated Laws; The justices ruled 5-4 that under the so-called government edicts doctrine, lawmakers are not authors of the statutes they produce.”
At Techdirt, Mike Masnick has a post titled “Supreme Court Says Georgia’s ‘Official Code’ Is Public Domain — Including Annotations.”
And at his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Supreme Court Expands Penumbra of Gov’t Edicts Doctrine: Official Annotations to Code Not Copyrightable.”
“Why I Am Not an Originalist”: F.H. Buckley has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
