Programming note: On Thursday, I will be arguing an appeal before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania sitting in Philadelphia. The court session is scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m., and my case is last on the list, meaning that my oral argument probably will not begin until sometime in the afternoon. Consequently, new posts will not appear here until later Thursday afternoon.
Also on Thursday shortly after 10 a.m. eastern time, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case captioned Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719. You can listen to the oral argument live, online via this link. Before that oral argument begins, the Court is planning to issue decisions in one or more argued cases. You can access those decisions, once they are posted online, via this link.
“Another Trump case at the Supreme Court? His argument for immunity could be a tough sell with the high court.” Aysha Bagchi, Bart Jansen, and Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.
“‘Judged by history’: Trump’s 14th Amendment fight at Supreme Court poses an enormous test for John Roberts.” John Fritze of CNN has this report.
“Healey nominates former romantic partner, Gabrielle Wolohojian, to Supreme Judicial Court”: Matt Stout of The Boston Globe has this report.
Chris Van Buskirk of The Boston Herald reports that “Healey nominates ex-romantic partner Gabrielle Wolohojian to serve on Supreme Judicial Court.”
And John L. Micek of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts has reports headlined “With new pick, Mass. Gov. Healey looks to expand her influence on Bay State’s highest court” and “Mass. Gov. Healey defends naming ex-partner to state’s highest court.”
“New Alaska Supreme Court chief justice highlights improvements in first annual address”: Eric Stone of Alaska Public Media has this report.
“Can the 14th amendment take Trump off the ballot? Supreme Court to hear case Thursday.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.
“Justice Jackson has weighed in on more legal questions of Jan. 6 rioting than any other Supreme Court member”: Devan Cole and Katelyn Polantz of CNN have this report.
“Key study in FDA abortion pill case at the Supreme Court was retracted in ‘partisan assault’ authors say; Sage Publishing has retracted a study that found significant uptick in abortion pill-related emergency room visits”: Brianna Herlihy of Fox News has this report.
“U.S. Solicitor General Acknowledges ‘Real Shift in Supreme Court Practice’; ‘Sometimes it’s quiet and we haven’t had an emergency case in a while; sometimes I feel like we have three or four going at once,’ Elizabeth Prelogar said”: Jimmy Hoover of The National Law Journal has this report.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of the interview, which begins with the Solicitor General answering how to pronounce her last name.
“Meet the lawyers arguing Trump’s Supreme Court Colorado ballot case”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
And Erica Orden of Politico has a report headlined “Meet the lawyers arguing the Trump ballot case at the Supreme Court; On Trump’s side is a prominent Texas conservative; Arguing against him are two Colorado lawyers making their Supreme Court debuts.”
“What SCOTUS Has to Decide About Trump and Disqualification”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.
“Why foreign workers are not shielded by federal whistleblower laws”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a per curiam decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“96-year-old US federal judge loses challenge over suspension; Judicial committee said suspension of Federal Circuit’s Pauline Newman was justified; Newman is separately challenging suspension in D.C. district court”: Blake Brittain of Reuters has this report.
And Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law reports that “Suspended 96-Year-Old Judge Loses Appeal to Judicial Panel; Newman argued suspension was overly harsh; Committee sided with judge’s colleagues.”
You can access today’s 29-page Memorandum of Decision of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States at this link.
“Biden administration asks US Supreme Court to hear ‘ghost gun’ appeal”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.
You can view the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“Fifth Circuit Publicly Reveals Holds in Cases It May Rehear; New Fifth Circuit policy shows pauses on decisions going into effect; Undisclosed judges can issue holds while court considers rehearing cases”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“You Are Allowed to Have an Opinion About What the Constitution Means; The Supreme Court’s obsession with ‘history and tradition’ gives so-called experts influence they have not earned and do not deserve”: Jay Willis has this post at Balls and Strikes.
“Trump Backers Steer Clear of Jan. 6 in Supreme Court Ballot Case; More than two dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Trump; Few argue Jan. 6 wasn’t insurrection urged by then president”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Why the Supreme Court Should Grant Certiorari in United States v. Trump; The D.C. Circuit reached the right result — but its reasoning heightens the case for Supreme Court review”: Jack Goldsmith has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.
“Will Trump stay on the ballot? What to expect at the Supreme Court Thursday; In a deeply polarized America, a divided Supreme Court weighs whether to disqualify Donald Trump from office because he participated in insurrection.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
And in related coverage, Kenneth P. Vogel of The New York Times has an article headlined “The Evolving Watchdog Group Behind the Ballot Challenge to Trump; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, is among the avowedly nonpartisan groups under pressure from donors to take more aggressively political stances.”
“Florida Court Weighs Ballot Measure to Allow Abortion ‘Before Viability’; Several justices pushed back on Wednesday against arguments that the language of the proposed constitutional amendment was too broad and would deceive voters”: Patricia Mazzei of The New York Times has an article that begins, “The Florida Supreme Court seemed reluctant on Wednesday to block a proposed measure protecting abortion rights from appearing on the November ballot, even though several members of the conservative-learning court questioned whether the measure’s language made clear its potentially sweeping effects.”
The Supreme Court of Florida has posted on YouTube at this link the video of today’s oral argument session.
“If SCOTUS Won’t Enforce the 14th Amendment, We Should Worry How They’ll Handle the 22nd; If the Court won’t impose Section 3 restrictions in favor of ‘letting the voters decide,’ will they let a presidential candidate vie for a third term?” Ian Bassin has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.
“The Supreme Court should say ‘no’ to Trump’s immunity case, quick”: The Washington Post has published this editorial.
Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “Denying Trump’s Immunity Is Bigger Than Him; Is the Presidency at risk of being harried by partisan prosecutors?”
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court is about to decide whether to sabotage Trump’s election theft trial; The justices had their shot to hear Trump’s immunity appeal; Now they need to stop delaying his criminal trial.”
“Why Did Trump Get Denied Immunity?” You can access yesterday’s bonus episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.
Also yesterday, Slate issued a bonus episode of its “Amicus” podcast titled “The Trump Trials Doomsday Clock Just Ticked a Second Closer to Midnight; The DC Circuit Court of Appeals invites the US Supreme Court to another game of chicken with the 2024 election.”
“Appeals Court Rejects Trump Immunity Claims; Case is fast-tracked for possible Supreme Court review”: Randall Eliason has this post at his “Sidebars” Substack site.
“The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business”: Law professor Akhil Reed Amar has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“The U.S. is no Longer a ‘Mature Democracy’: Implications for Trump’s Ballot Eligibility.” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”
“The Ghost of Bush v. Gore Haunts the Supreme Court’s Colorado Case; In 2000, the Court played an outsized role in the Presidential election; This year, in the fight over keeping Trump’s name on the ballot, that decision is a warning but not a precedent”: E. Tammy Kim has this article online at The New Yorker.
And in commentary, online at Slate, law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has a Jurisprudence essay titled “Donald Trump Is Asking the Supreme Court for the Bush v. Gore Treatment.”
“Fifth Circuit Pitches Supreme Court on Religious Liberty Case; Fifth Circuit majority said SCOTUS should resolve question; Court’s conservatives said they could fix it themselves”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report on an order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.
“A Legal Outsider, an Offbeat Theory and the Fate of the 2024 Election; When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.
