“Federal appeals court halts Biden administration’s vaccine requirement, delivering policy a major blow”: Eli Rosenberg and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Federal appeals court keeps on hold Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing rule for large companies.”
And Jordan Williams of The Hill reports that “Federal appeals court affirms stay on Biden vaccine mandate for businesses.”
You can access today’s ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“Gov. Wolf appeals court ruling voiding school mask mandate”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.
“Inside Mississippi’s Last Abortion Clinic — and the Biggest Fight for Abortion Rights in a Generation”: Abigail Abrams has this cover story in the new issue of Time magazine.
“Court Issues Brief Hold on Release of Trump Files in Jan. 6 Inquiry; Congress had been set to receive the first batch of Trump White House files from the National Archives on Friday, a move that the former president had fought”: Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater of The New York Times have this report.
Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post reports that “Appeals court temporarily bars release of Trump White House records to House Jan. 6 committee.”
Byron Tau and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Appeals Court Delays Release of Trump Records to the House While Fast-Tracking Arguments; Court’s action temporarily stays a trial court ruling this week that would have released the records to the House.”
Kara Scannell of CNN reports that “Democrat-appointed appellate panel pauses release of Trump White House records ahead of Friday deadline.”
And Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Appeals court slows Jan. 6 committee’s effort to access Trump White House records; The National Archives had been preparing to deliver the documents on Friday, but the three-judge panel will instead hear arguments in the matter on Nov. 30.”
You can view today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Midnight at SCOTUS: In 1997, the Supreme Court publicly tried to discourage parties from filing pleas and applications in a way that made the justices make weighty decisions late at night.” Tony Mauro has this post at his “The Marble Palace Blog.”
“CVS drops Supreme Court appeal in Bay Area case that challenged prescription policies”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a report that begins, “Less than a month before the Supreme Court was to hear a Bay Area suit against CVS that could have narrowed the scope of the nation’s disability laws, the drugstore chain announced an agreement Wednesday with advocacy groups and HIV patients who had challenged its policies on receiving prescription medication.”
“The Supreme Court Tactic That Aims to Kill Affirmative Action; A group suing Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has asked the court to hear the two cases together, hoping for a ruling that would apply across higher education”: Anemona Hartocollis of The New York Times has this report.
“Democrats, leave the Supreme Court alone”: U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“How Trump Transformed the Supreme Court: The legal journalist Linda Greenhouse expects the new conservative majority to change American law on abortion, religion, and affirmative action.” Isaac Chotiner has this “Q.&A.” online at The New Yorker.
“Supreme Court’s Watergate-era rulings against Nixon may end Trump’s executive privilege claims”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“New rulings set up Louisiana Supreme Court showdown over 1,500 non-unanimous jury verdicts”: John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.
“Homer Plessy, namesake of Supreme Court’s ‘separate but equal’ ruling, is up for a pardon; Creole man of color was arrested in New Orleans in 1892 for refusing to sit in train’s ‘colored car'”: Matt Sledge of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.
“Affirmative action opponents ask U.S. Supreme Court to take UNC, Harvard cases together”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.
“Texas judge hears legal challenges to restrictive abortion law on Wednesday”: Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.
Allie Morris of The Dallas Morning News has an article headlined “‘Anybody can just file a lawsuit’: Abortion rights groups challenge new Texas restrictions; The groups want the state court to prevent Texas Right to Life from suing them under the restrictive abortion law.”
Jeremy Blackman of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Advocates for Texas abortion ban defend it in state court.”
And Kirk McDaniel of Courthouse News Service reports that “Texas judge hears arguments in cases challenging the state’s abortion ban; Over a dozen cases were argued before a district court judge in Texas, all of them seeking injunctive relief against the nation’s strictest ban on abortion.”
“Supreme Court wrestles with limits on digital billboard ads, free speech”: John Kruzel of The Hill has this report.
And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Texas billboard law centers on location, but advertiser say that’s also content; The Supreme Court juggled references to burger joints and fried kale as the justices squinted at roadway signs through a First Amendment lens.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, No. 20-1029.
Update: In other coverage, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Wades Into Battle Between Billboard Advertisers and City Officials; Industry seeks to lift limits on ‘off-premises’ signs.”
“Supreme Court Looks at Puerto Rico’s Status in Case on Benefits; A federal law excludes residents of Puerto Rico from a Social Security program that provides monthly payments to needy people”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
And Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Weighs Legality of Federal Benefits Denied to Low-Income Puerto Ricans; Justices consider whether Congress can exclude territory from U.S. program for the poor and disabled.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in United States v. Vaello-Madero, No. 20-303.
“Right-Wing Extremism Is the Conservative Legal Movement’s Shiniest Badge of Honor; From the moment they begin law school, left-leaning students are warned not to appear too ‘political’; For conservative students, the more culture wars they fight, the better”: Madiba K. Dennie has this post at Balls and Strikes.
“Outrage Defense Stretches Texas Abortion Law Into New Territory”: Lydia Wheeler has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.
“Legal battle over Biden’s vax-or-test mandate for businesses is just beginning”: Ann E. Marimow and Eli Rosenberg of The Washington Post have this report.
“Supreme Court seems split on condemned man’s request for pastor at execution”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Condemned Man’s Wish for Pastor’s Touch; A Texas death row inmate, John H. Ramirez, asked the justices to let spiritual advisers pray with and lay hands on prisoners as they await execution.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Role of Religious Advisers During Executions; Texas inmate seeks to have pastor lay hands on him in his final moments.”
John Fritze of USA Today has a report headlined “Texas death row case: Supreme Court wrestles with religious freedom in the execution chamber.”
And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs condemned killer’s demand for pastor to touch him during execution.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Ramirez v. Collier, No. 21-5592.
“‘Justice on the Brink’ author considers the impact of Trump’s 3 Supreme Court picks”: Linda Greenhouse was a guest on this segment from today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Fresh Air.”
“Oklahoma Supreme Court: $465 million verdict in Johnson & Johnson opioid case thrown out.” Nolan Clay of The Oklahoman has this report.
Barbara Hoberock of The Tulsa World reports that “Opioid public nuisance ruling reversed by Oklahoma Supreme Court.”
Max Bryan of The Norman (Okla.) Transcript reports that “OK Supreme Court overturns state ruling in Johnson & Johnson opioid suit.”
Jennifer Calfas of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Johnson & Johnson Opioid Verdict Overturned by Oklahoma Supreme Court; Justices say district court stepped into shoes of legislature.”
Jan Hoffman of The New York Times reports that “Oklahoma Supreme Court Throws Out $465 Million Opioid Ruling Against J.&J.; The 5-1 decision is a setback for those who are fighting to hold big drug makers accountable for the opioid epidemic.”
And Meryl Kornfield and Lenny Bernstein of The Washington Post report that “Oklahoma Supreme Court overturns historic opioid ruling against J&J.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.
“The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Finally Found a Religious Objection They Don’t Like; John Henry Ramirez says he wants a pastor by his side in the execution chamber; Three justices think he might be faking it”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court to weigh in on religious rights of prisoners facing execution; The court will hear arguments over whether a death row inmate has the right to have a spiritual adviser in the death chamber who can pray aloud and be in physical contact with them”: Pete Williams of NBC News has this report.
“Texas’s Anti-Abortion Law Won’t Be the Last Bid to Create a Constitution-Free Zone; The structure of SB8 is a familiar one, torn from the playbook of Texas’s longstanding efforts to deprive citizens it disfavors of another foundational right: the right to vote.” Orion de Nevers has this post at Balls and Strikes.
“Supreme Court skeptical of FBI’s claim in monitoring of Orange County Muslims”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Case Against F.B.I. for Spying on Muslims; The justices considered whether the state secrets doctrine required dismissal on national security grounds of a case claiming religious discrimination.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears FBI Claim of State Secrets in Muslim Surveillance Case; FBI sent a bodybuilder into mosque to look for would-be terrorists; they turned him in to the FBI.”
And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court may turn back a challenge to FBI surveillance of Muslims.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in FBI v. Fazaga, No. 20-828.
“Is the Supreme Court on Its Way to Becoming a Conservative Bastion?” Online at The New York Times, law professor Noah Feldman has this review of Linda Greenhouse’s new book, “Justice on the Brink: The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Rise of Amy Coney Barrett, and Twelve Months That Transformed the Supreme Court.”
“Does the Supreme Court React to Congressional Preferences?” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Supreme Court considers a minister’s role at the time an inmate is put to death”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court must decide if it loves religious liberty more than the death penalty; A new religion case forces the Supreme Court to confront the legacy of one of its cruelest decisions.”
“Lottery Will Pick Court to Hear Biden Shot-or-Test Challenges”: Robert Iafolla of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“The wide importance of a ‘narrow’ issue in Texas’ SB 8 abortion ban”: Columnist Harry Litman has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
“UC Hastings College of the Law to rename school after reviewing founder’s role in mass killings of Yuki Indians”: Melissa Gomez has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
“GOP-appointed judges freeze Biden vaccine requirement after federal lawsuit; The federal appeals court in New Orleans is giving the Biden administration until Monday to respond to a lawsuit filed by GOP-led states and businesses”: Eli Rosenberg of The Washington Post has this report.
Brent Kendall and Sabrina Siddiqui of The Wall Street Journal report that “Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Blocks Biden Administration Vaccine Rules for Private Employers; New Orleans-based court says Covid-19 vaccination and testing rules raise grave legal issues.”
And Elyse Carmosino of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana reports that “Federal COVID vaccine mandate temporarily halted in Louisiana following lawsuit.”
You can access today’s per curiam order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“As Supreme Court considers abortion cases, local governments impose bans; Municipal abortion bans have more than doubled since the start of 2021, according to advocates on both sides of the issue”: Jacob Fulton of NBC News has this report.
“The surprisingly high stakes in a Supreme Court case about $28,000; The Court takes up a difficult case about colonialism and democracy”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
