“United Airlines to Let Unvaccinated Workers Return; Carrier to allow back employees on unpaid leave or in non-customer-facing roles who got religious or medical exemptions from Covid-19 vaccine mandate”: Alison Sider of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
It will be interesting to see if this announcement will have any effect on a certain Fifth Circuit case that is now pending on petition for rehearing en banc. The plaintiffs on Monday filed their response in opposition to the rehearing petition, after being directed to do so by the Fifth Circuit.
“This Sedative Is Now a Go-To Drug for Executions. But Does It Work? A legal battle in Oklahoma over whether prisoners feel severe pain after being given the sedative, midazolam, will determine whether its use is constitutional.” Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“White House set to stay in Supreme Court suspense until after KBJ’s hearings; Sen. Susan Collins, the most likely aisle-crossing vote for President Joe Biden’s high court pick, is steering clear of telegraphing her intentions”: Marianne LeVine of Politico has this report.
“Divided court explains choice of new congressional map”: Mark Scolforo of The Associated Press has this report on the opinions that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.
Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a majority opinion, three concurring opinions (here, here, and here), and three dissenting opinions (here, here, and here).
View online this year’s Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture featuring D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao: The Case Western Reserve University School of Law has posted the video on YouTube at this link.
“Masterpiece Cakeshop Redux and the Homophobia Exemption from Anti-Discrimination Law”: Law professor Sherry F. Colb has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.
And at “Dorf on Law,” Colb has a blog post titled “Why the Affirmative Action Cases Next Term Are Important.”
“Court revives suits seeking refunds after GWU, American moved online in pandemic”: Lauren Lumpkin has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Appeals court revives tuition-refund lawsuits against AU & GWU; Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson bows out of ruling on fallout from Covid-related college closures.”
Brian Flood of Bloomberg Law reports that “American University, GWU See Covid Tuition Lawsuits Revived.”
And Mychael Schnell of The Hill reports that “Appeals court restores lawsuits seeking coronavirus tuition refunds.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Textiness in Statutory Interpretation”: Rick Hills has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”
“A front-row seat to history: 45 years inside the Supreme Court; Longtime sketch artist Art Lien will retire at the end of the Court’s current term.” Adam Longo of Washington, DC’s WUSA 9 has this report.
“GOP pushes for an ‘earthquake in American electoral power’; Conservatives are promoting the ‘independent legislature’ theory, which would hand vast election powers to GOP legislators in battleground states”: Zach Montellaro of Politico has this report.
And in commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court’s Elections Docket: The Justices can’t duck forever on state courts and gerrymanders.”
“The Alarming Legal Strategy Behind a SCOTUS Case That Could Undo Decades of Civil Rights Protections”: Law professor Hila Keren has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“How Supreme Court Radicalism Could Threaten Democracy Itself”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
And online at The New York Times, Hasen has a guest essay titled “How to Keep the Rising Tide of Fake News From Drowning Our Democracy.”
“Why All Nine Justices Overturned a Ludicrously Cruel Prison Sentence: Wooden v. United States shows the Supreme Court at its best — and throws its usual dysfunction into sharp relief.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Perhaps Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke can accurately predict the future: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report headlined “California county’s pandemic gun store closures get new review by 9th Circuit” about an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court will reconsider gun case after Trump appointee predicted his ruling would be overturned.”
This was the case in which Judge VanDyke took the absolutely bonkers step of issuing a concurring opinion that consisted of his attempt to write the en banc decision reversing his opinion for the three-judge panel, replete with footnotes criticizing his Ninth Circuit colleagues for their approach to Second Amendment cases.
My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling in this case can be accessed here and here (among other places).
