“Trump White House records can be released in Jan. 6 probe pending Supreme Court review, appeals court rules; Former president seeks to keep White House papers from congressional committee investigating Capitol riot in first legal case testing whether a sitting president can waive a predecessor’s claim of executive privilege”: Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.
Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Shield Material From Jan. 6 Inquiry; A three-judge panel held that Congress’s oversight powers, backed by President Biden’s decision not to invoke executive privilege over the material, outweighed Mr. Trump’s residual secrecy powers.”
Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Rejects Trump Bid to Block Records From House Jan. 6 Panel; Former president provided no basis for stopping National Archives from giving records to committee probing pro-Trump Capitol riot, judges rule.”
And Emily Zantow of The Washington Times reports that “Court orders Trump to hand over records to Jan. 6 committee.”
You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Architecture and the First Amendment Before the Supreme Court; Eleventh Circuit found that architectural design would not be understood as protected speech”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a petition for writ of certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Ninth Circuit Conservatives Use Muscle to Signal Supreme Court”: Andrew Wallender and Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law have this report.
“Andy Warhol Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Review Prince Pop Art Dispute; Warhol’s estate says there is a ‘cloud of legal uncertainty over an entire genre of visual art’ after an appeals court found his image of Prince to be too visually similar to Lynn Goldmith’s photograph for the difference in their artistic meanings to be legally relevant”: Ashley Cullins of The Hollywood Reporter has this article.
And Alex Greenberger of ARTNews reports that “Warhol Foundation Seeks Supreme Court Review of Lynn Goldsmith’s Prince Portraits Case.”
You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“If the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade: Yes, the end of Roe would disrupt U.S. politics and the idea that no liberal policy can ever change.” Columnist Daniel Henninger has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.
“Episode 49: Roe Roe Roe — Stare and Stenchy.” You can access today’s new installment of law professor Akhil Reed Amar‘s podcast, “Amarica’s Constitution,” via this link.
“California plans to be abortion sanctuary if Roe overturned”: Adam Beam of The Associated Press has this report.
“Federal Courts Aren’t Royal Ones: The judiciary should make it harder for judges to influence the selection of their successors.” Laurie Lin and David Lat have this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.
“SG Files Brief in Harvard Affirmative Action Case, Teeing The Case For Review This Term. Guns, Abortion, and Affirmative Action in a single year. Why not?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
You can access the Solicitor General’s amicus brief by invitation of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
“Women woefully absent in appellate oral arguments, 7th Circuit judge’s study finds”: Alison Frankel of Reuters has this news analysis.
I linked to the study Monday in this post.
“Supreme Court Seems Wary of Ban on State Aid to Religious Schools; The case, concerning a tuition program in Maine, seemed likely to extend a winning streak at the court for parents seeking public funds for religious education”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leans in favor of requiring taxpayer funding for some religious schools.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on State Funds for Religious Schools; Case challenges Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from voucher program covering rural areas without public schools.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court conservatives skeptical of Maine policy that blocks state funding for religious schools.”
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices skeptical of Maine’s public education program that blocks religious schools.”
Megan Gray of The Portland Press Herald reports that “Supreme Court signals support of public tuition for religious schools in Maine case; The plaintiffs say a state program of tuition reimbursement — for students whose towns have no high school — unfairly discriminates against people based on their religious beliefs.”
Judy Harrison of The Bangor Daily News reports that “Legal experts think Maine is bound to lose its religious school funding case.”
And at Education Week, Mark Walsh has a report headlined “Religious Schools and State Aid: What to Glean From a Lively Supreme Court Argument.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Carson v. Makin, No. 20-1088.
“The Supreme Court Faces a Voting Paradox”: Online at The New York Times, Peter Coy has an essay that begins, “There is a chance — not a likelihood, but a chance — that the decision the Supreme Court reaches on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will be confusing, inconsistent and even paradoxical.”
“The Origins of Supreme Court Question Selection”: Law professor Ben Johnson has posted this article, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review, at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“Justice Kavanaugh’s Misdirection Plays in the Mississippi Abortion Case”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.
Also online at Justia’s Verdict, Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut have an essay titled “After Roe, The Coming Fight to End All Abortions Everywhere.”
“Abortion, Guns, and the Irrelevance of Text to Constitutional Law”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”
“The death penalty cases before the Supreme Court that could keep innocent people in prison; Arizona wants justices to make a ruling that would jeopardize our Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at NBC News.
“Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes’ lawsuit against The Advocate can move forward, court rules”: Andrea Gallo of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has this report on a ruling that the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, issued yesterday.
“A would-be justice makes his Supreme Court debut”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Merrick Garland finally made his Supreme Court debut on Tuesday. Not in a justice’s black robe, but wearing the striped pants and jacket with tails reserved for government lawyers appearing before the court.”
“Biden’s Supreme Court Packers Pack Up; Their report on adding Justices puts the issue in the President’s court”: This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“No, the Constitution is not ‘neutral’ on abortion”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“‘Court Packing’ Issue Divides Commission Appointed by Biden; The bipartisan group voted 34 to 0 to send the president a report analyzing ideas like Supreme Court expansion, but it declined to take a stand”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.
Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court commission endorses final report noting bipartisan public support for term limits.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Commission Approves Report on Supreme Court Amid Partisan Differences; Experts praise process of exploring debates over high court’s makeup and role without resolving them.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court commission submits report to White House with no recommendation on ‘packing.’”
And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court panel doesn’t recommend adding justices or making other major changes.”
“Trump had wanted to pick Amy Coney Barrett instead of Brett Kavanaugh for second Supreme Court opening, former chief of staff says”: Felicia Sonmez of The Washington Post has this report.
“Supreme Court Expansion Clamor Resumes as Biden Commission Wraps”: Greg Stohr and Jennifer Epstein of Bloomberg News have this report.
“How Biden Is Reshaping The Courts”: Elena Mejía and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight have this report.
“Justice Kavanaugh’s Empty Democratic Promise: Returning abortion to the states doesn’t put power into the hands of voters in much of the country.” David Litt has this essay online at The Atlantic.
And today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, contains this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, headlined “The Practical Challenges of Returning Abortion Rights to Legislative Control.”
“If Roe falls, some fear ripple effect on civil rights cases”: Lindsay Whitehurst of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “If the Supreme Court decides to overturn or gut the decision that legalized abortion, some fear that it could undermine other precedent-setting cases, including civil rights and LGBTQ protections.”
“Biden’s Supreme Court commission set to vote on final report”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this article.
And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court panel wary of big changes.”
“Supreme Court poised to further open the door for taxpayer funding of religious schools”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear Maine case that could expand school voucher programs nationwide.”
“I Couldn’t Vote for Trump, but I’m Grateful for His Supreme Court Picks”: Erika Bachiochi has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Prepares to Vote on Final Report; A draft version of the document flagged deep disputes over court expansion while exploring how phasing in term limits might work”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “White House Commission Weighs In on Supreme Court; Scholars and legal advocates underscore ongoing debate over role and operation of high court.”
Ariane de Vogue and Paul LeBlanc of CNN report that “Biden Supreme Court commission’s draft report details ‘profound’ disagreement over adding seats to bench.”
And Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson and Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law report that “White House Supreme Court Commission Backs Modest Changes.”
You can access the Commission’s draft final report at this link.
“Judicial Notice (12.04.21): ‘Stench’; A deep dive into Dobbs, a major merger in Biglaw, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.
“Judge Smith retiring but not quitting; As he turns 70, chief judge must step down, but plans to continue as senior jurist”: Phil Ray of The Altoona (Pa.) Mirror has this report.
And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “3rd Circuit’s chief judge takes senior status, giving Biden chance to tilt court.”
“How Unappealing: An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap among Appellate Attorneys.” The American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession has published this report written by Seventh Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve and Jamie B. Luguri.
Any connection between the title of this report and the title of this blog remains to be determined.
“After Dobbs: What would the potential overturning of Roe portend for other substantive due process cases?” Sean Beienburg has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“Inside the Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority eyes overturning Roe v. Wade.” Julie Rikelman joined host Dahlia Lithwick on this week’s installment of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast.
