Welcome to your latest update on the top stories of the week from the world of appellate litigation. We owe thanks to Howard Bashman and his dedicated work on How Appealing, the first blog focusing on appellate litigation on the internet.
The Supreme Court features heavily in the news this week. For instance, there is increasing concern regarding a particular human bias among the justices. It is not political bias that is causing them to lose popularity, but their sense of overconfidence. Law Professor Aaron Tang discusses this in his latest essay for Politico Magazine.
We also saw insightful commentary from Law Professor Tonja Jacobi on how Chief Justice John Roberts controls the line of argumentation in the Supreme Court, if not the conclusions. She offers more perspective in her recent essay on Bloomberg Law.
In other news, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has scaled back protection for millions of streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water in response to a Supreme Court decision. Learn more about these changes in this report from The New York Times.
Finally, we turn to the intersection of politics and courtroom etiquette as judges grapple with unruly presidential candidate remarks that may disrupt a fair and orderly trial. You can read more about this in Byron Tau’s report for The Wall Street Journal.
In a historical reflection, law professor Steve Vladeck comments on a critical shift in Supreme Court history, discussing the idea that FDR’s 1937 ‘court-packing’ plan, deemed to have failed, may have actually impacted one of the most consequential doctrinal shifts. His comments are available in his recent post.
Find these stories and more in the latest ‘How Appealing Weekly Roundup’ from Above the Law.