“The Supreme Court Might Kill Voting Rights — Quietly; Conservative justices seem poised to use complex, technical doctrines that will likely sanction all manner of state voter-suppression measures”: David H. Gans has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Arizona High Court Revives Suit Over Pharmacist Joke About Erectile Dysfunction; Was the witty banter between a Costco pharmacist and a man’s ex-wife in good faith? The man will get a chance to prove it wasn’t.” Brad Poole of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Arizona issued today.
“Supreme Court Backs Georgia College Student’s Free Speech Suit; The 8-to-1 ruling said courts may hear suits seeking only nominal damages; Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., dissenting, said the majority had turned judges into advice columnists”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Roberts alone in dissent as Supreme Court backs student in religious-speech case.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Widens Path for Free-Speech Cases; Georgia college is found liable for nominal damages despite having now removed offending restrictions on a student’s speech rights.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with students in free speech case against Georgia college.”
Eric Stirgus of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Supreme Court rules for former Ga. college student in free speech case.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court revives ex-student’s suit against Georgia college.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court keeps ex-students’ lawsuit alive in college speech zone case; In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said federal courts must hear only active controversies and not serve as ‘advice columnists.’”
Devin Dwyer of ABC News reports that “Supreme Court sides with Christian students silenced on Georgia campus; Chief Justice John Roberts was alone in dissenting from the decision.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Chief Justice Roberts accuses court of turning judges into ‘advice columnists.’”
Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “Supreme Court Backs Suits Challenging School Policies That Seek Only ‘Nominal’ Damages.”
Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Says Even a Symbolic Dollar Can Redress Injury.”
And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s new decision about evangelical preachers on campus, explained; Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski doesn’t have much to say about ‘cancel culture,’ but it has a lot to say about the role of the courts.”
“Supreme Court rejects another Georgia election lawsuit”: David Wickert of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.
And John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rejects Trump ally challenge to Georgia Senate runoffs.”
“Supreme Court refuses to take up Trump suit about Wisconsin election results”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court dumps last of Trump’s election appeals.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Rejected by Supreme Court in Final Election Challenge.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rejects final Trump election challenge; Trump had appealed lower court rulings that upheld Wisconsin’s handling of mail-in ballots; It was the last in a string of defeats before the court.”
Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court rejects Trump’s final election challenge; Court announced Monday that it will not hear the case.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rejects final Trump bid to nullify 2020 election results.”
And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Trump Has Now Officially Lost All Of His Postelection Challenges In The Supreme Court; Trump argued a case he’d filed in Wisconsin wasn’t moot even after Biden took office; The Supreme Court refused to hear it.”
“Get to the Punchline”: You can access today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Kate Shaw and Leah Litman, via this link.
“No Stay of Execution on a Money Judgment? No Problem, Court Panel Holds.” Tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, discussing this recent ruling of the Pa. Superior Court.
“Experts on Cert”: Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.
“Biden getting 1st shot at making mark on federal judiciary”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Cracks in a Legal Shield for Officers’ Misconduct; The Supreme Court has hinted that it is ready to trim the doctrine of qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to sue government officials for violence and cruelty”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
Therein Liptak discusses, among other things, law professor Alex Reinert‘s new article titled “Qualified Immunity on Appeal: An Empirical Assessment.”
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case.