“Senate committee approves legislation to put Supreme Court hearings on camera; It’s the first time such legislation has cleared the Senate committee in more than a decade, according to Fix the Court, a group advocating for more transparency in the judicial system”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has a report that begins, “The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a pair of bills Thursday that would dramatically expand video coverage of federal court trials and other proceedings while putting Supreme Court arguments on camera for the first time.”
“The Supreme Court decides not to light the housing market on fire; SCOTUS is forced to clean up a $124 billion mess of its own making”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “A Scheme to Blow Up the Housing Market Backfired Spectacularly at the Supreme Court; Instead of winning billions for shareholders, the plaintiffs handed Joe Biden tighter control over the mortgage industry.”
“A Cheerleader Lands an F on Snapchat, but a B+ in Court”: Law professor Justin Driver has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Former public defender, Zuckerman partner confirmed to 7th Circuit”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.
Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “Jackson-Akiwumi Confirmed to Seventh Circuit in Bipartisan Vote” (subscription required for full access).
And at “The Indiana Lawyer,” Marilyn Odendahl has a post titled “Senate confirms Jackson-Akiwumi to 7th Circuit.”
Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Candace Jackson-Akiwumi to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by a vote of 53-40.
“Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program”: Celine Castronuovo of The Hill has this report. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will be posting its en banc decision at its web site later this afternoon.
Update: The Fourth Circuit’s en banc ruling can be accessed here. The decision includes this description of how the judges voted:
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz, Judge King, Judge Keenan, Judge Wynn, Judge Floyd, Judge Thacker, and Judge Harris joined. Chief Judge Gregory wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judge Wynn, Judge Thacker, and Judge Harris joined. Judge Wynn wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judge Motz, Judge Thacker and Judge Harris joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer, Judge Agee, and Judge Quattlebaum joined, in which Judge Diaz joined Part I, Judge Richardson joined Parts I, II, and III, and Judge Rushing joined Parts I and II. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion. Judge Diaz wrote a dissenting opinion.
“The Fulton Opinion and the Originalist Future of Religious Freedom; While Fulton‘s majority opinion did not overrule Smith, two concurrences suggest that Smith is on life support”: John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
In Bashman news from Australia: Albert McKnight of RiotACT of Deakin, Australian Capital Territory, reports that “Friends bash man in Latham shop seeking vengeance for stolen drugs.”
“Biden Removes Chief of Housing Agency After Supreme Court Ruling; The case was brought by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who said the law that created the agency was unconstitutional”: Matthew Goldstein, Adam Liptak, and Jim Tankersley have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Rachel Siegel, Tyler Pager, and Robert Barnes have an article headlined “White House replaces regulator overseeing U.S. mortgage giants following Supreme Court ruling; The Biden administration appointed Sandra L. Thompson as acting director, replacing Trump appointee Mark Calabria.”
And in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Andrew Ackerman and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal have an article headlined “Biden Administration Removes Fannie, Freddie Overseer After Court Ruling; Supreme Court decision on Wednesday is a blow to investors who bet the mortgage giants would be returned to private hands from government control.”
“The Supreme Court’s conservative majority returns to its passion project”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Supreme Court Rules Against Union Recruiting on California Farms; The case concerned a unique state regulation allowing labor representatives to meet with farm workers at their workplaces for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Calif. regulation allowing union access to farmworkers on growers’ land.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Against Union Organizers’ Access to California Farms; The decision erases a crowning achievement of César Chavez’s farmworker movement.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules against labor in private property case, barring access for organizing.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court backs businesses challenging California labor law.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court limits union power in farm-access ruling.”
Erin Mulvaney and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Rules Against Unions on California Farm Access.”
Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “California Farms Win Challenge of Union-Organizing Law; Property owners told the Supreme Court that labor drives have disrupted busy harvest operations, and that there are more suitable locations to organize somewhere where workers won’t be distracted.”
In commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Big Win for Property Rights; The Supreme Court puts significant limits on the government’s claims on the rights of owners.”
Joan Biskupic of CNN has a news analysis headlined “John Roberts is all business in his conservatism.”
Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Latest Union-Busting Decision Goes Far Beyond California Farmworkers.”
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court just handed down disastrous news for unions; The Court’s new union-busting decision reads like something out of Ayn Rand’s darkest fantasies.”
“‘Hot Pursuit’ Doesn’t Always Justify Entry, Supreme Court Rules; The mere flight of a person suspected of a minor crime, without more, does not allow police officers to enter homes without warrants, the court said”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court tightens, slightly, rules for police entering a home without a warrant.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “In two very different California disputes, Supreme Court affirms private property rights.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court balks at automatic warrantless searches when police are in ‘hot pursuit’ for lesser crimes.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court limits when police can enter home without warrant.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court declines to expand police search powers.”
And Samantha Hawkins of Courthouse News Service reports that “Hot Pursuit May Still Require Warrant, High Court Rules; The government had argued that police in any kind of a chase don’t need a warrant to enter a house, regardless of whether the crime at issue is a felony or a misdemeanor.”
“Why The ‘Trump Court’ Won’t Be Like Trump: There may be more common ground among Supreme Court liberals and conservatives than many people think.” Peter S. Canellos has this essay online at Politico Magazine.
“The Really Big Fight on Voting Rights Is Just Around the Corner”: Law professor Richard H. Pildes has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“Supreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Punished for Vulgar Snapchat Message; A Pennsylvania school district violated the First Amendment by disciplining a student for off-campus speech, the court ruled”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules student cheerleader may not be punished for vulgar social media posts.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules for High-School Cheerleader Brandi Levy in Free-Speech Case Over Snapchat Post; In 8-1 decision, court finds school violated First Amendment by punishing student for using a vulgar word in social media.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sides with cheerleader who wrote profane social media post slamming her school.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for foul-mouthed cheerleader in student free speech case.”
Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sides with a cussing Pa. cheerleader in student free-speech case; While the court held that there are some instances where schools have an interest in regulating off-campus speech, like harassment or bullying, officials went too far in the case of Brandi Levy.”
Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “Supreme Court sides with Schuylkill County cheerleader suspended over profane Snapchat post.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices rule for cursing cheerleader over Snapchat post.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Cheerleader prevails at U.S. Supreme Court in free speech case.”
Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg News report that “Cheerleader’s Vulgarity Is Shielded in Supreme Court Speech Win.”
Josh Gerstein and Bianca Quilantan of Politico report that “Supreme Court sides with teen in speech case over Snapchat outburst; The justices’ 8-1 decision found that the First Amendment imposes broad limits on public schools’ ability to regulate off-campus speech delivered via social media.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court backs cheerleader over school in free speech case.”
Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Student on Regulation of Off-Campus Speech.”
Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Cheerleader Suspended Over Expletive-Laden Snap Prevails at High Court; The justices ruled 8-1 that a Pennsylvania school district overstepped its authority when it suspended a cheerleader over a vulgar Snapchat post.”
And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules Cheerleader’s F-Bombs Are Protected By The 1st Amendment.”
“Black antitrust lawyers earn nod from Kavanaugh in win for college athletes”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.
“Kavanaugh’s Sports Fandom Shines in Athlete-Centered Opinion”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson and Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law have this report.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in four argued cases.
1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Lange v. California, No. 20-18. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined in part, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued an opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Collins v. Yellen, No. 19-422. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan issued an opinion, ih which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined in part, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L., No. 20-255. Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“John Roberts: The man in the middle. Many on the right don’t like the chief justice. Others see him as protecting the institution. Is he the last bulwark against rank partisanship?” Sarah Isgur has this article in the July/August 2021 issue of Deseret Magazine.
“Trump admits he is ‘disappointed’ with Supreme Court judges he picked who voted to back Obamacare; The ex-president also lashed out at his former vice-president Mike Pence for certifying the election results”: Josh Marcus of The Independent (UK) has this report.
“As the Supreme Court wraps up, Justice Stephen Breyer offers no hints on retirement; Democratic activists are loudly lobbying for the oldest justice to step down”: Devin Dwyer of ABC News has this report.
“Sixth Circuit Reinstates Tennessee Restrictions on First-Time Voters; A divided appeals panel put back in place a Tennessee law that prohibits first-time voters from using absentee ballots, after finding the underlying challenge had been mooted”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.
“Appeals court to decide fate of California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
And Bianca Bruno of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Questions Commonality of Large-Capacity Magazines Banned by California; Large-capacity gun magazines holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition are used in virtually all mass shootings; They are also frequently sold as a standard firearm attachment with the most popular guns sold in the U.S.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of today’s remote oral argument before an 11-judge en banc panel.
“Supreme Court battle could wreak havoc with Biden’s 2020 agenda”: Alexander Bolton of The Hill has this report.
“Clarence Thomas vs. the Fictional Progressive Narrative: His writings from the bench frequently bust popular left-wing myths about race and justice.” Columnist Jason L. Riley will have this op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Why Justice Breyer Will Resign at the End of This Court Term: Despite a lot of words about not politicizing the Court, he will do the right thing — and his former clerk is likely to take his seat.” Law professor Randall Kennedy has this essay online at The American Prospect.
“The Politics of Supreme Court Retirements: Amid calls for Justice Stephen Breyer to step down, the legal scholar Noah Feldman considers politics, partisanship, and the Court.” Isaac Chotiner has this “Q&A” online at The New Yorker.
“Iowa abortion law requiring 24-hour waiting period permanently blocked by district court”: William Morris and Stephen Gruber-Miller of The Des Moines Register have this report.
And Grant Schulte of The Associated Press reports that “Iowa court blocks mandatory waiting period for abortion.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Johnson County, Iowa District Court at this link.
“Stop Telling Justice Breyer to Retire: Not only is it counterproductive, but it misses the point.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Clerk Who Said Appeals Judge Harassed Her Blasts ‘Indifference'”: Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law has this report on Olivia Warren’s Comment titled “Enough is Not Enough: Reflection on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Judiciary,” which appears in the June 2021 issue of the Harvard Law Review.
“11th Circuit Tosses Crypto Class Action Against Rapper TI; A three-judge panel referenced several of the rapper’s songs in a decision rejecting fraud claims against him”: Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.
And at “The SDFLA Blog,” David Oscar Markus has a post titled “Chief Judge Pryor channels his inner rapper.”
“Appeals Court Revives Challenge to California Law Mandating Women Board Members; Federal judges say shareholder may sue over state’s 2018 law that requires public companies in California to have women directors”: Theo Francis has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Challenge to state law requiring women on corporate boards brought back to life.“
Ninth Circuit decides the fate of three separate lawsuits accusing Facebook, Google, and Twitter of aiding terrorism: You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in which each of the three judges on the panel issued an opinion, at this link.
Update: In other coverage, William Dotinga of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Revives Suit Against Social Media Giants Over Nightclub Terror Attack; The tech giants argued the Communications Decency Act absolves them of liability for terror attacks committed or sanctioned by the Islamic State group in Paris, Istanbul and San Bernardino, California.”
“7th Circ. Won’t Revive Ex-Trump Staffer’s Defamation Suit”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.
“Supreme Court asked to decide when travelers’ phones, laptops may be searched at border”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.
“Supreme Court Term Limits Could Backfire on Democrats; Caps that apply only to new justices would frustrate the partisan ambitions behind the effort”: Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
