Welcome to this week’s roundup of legal highlights from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, a service dedicated to providing updates on appellate litigation. This week’s collection includes insights and commentary on a range of topics, with emphasis on the controversies surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a recent Jurisprudence essay published on Slate, Sarah Lipton-Lubet critiques the Supreme Court’s conservatives on their stance toward plaintiffs. Meanwhile, fellow Slate contributor, Jay Willis, explores the Supreme Court liberals’ frustrations with the current term in another Jurisprudence essay.
This week also saw a Court of Appeal member receiving a formal warning for misconduct. According to a revealing post by Joshua Rozenberg at his “A Lawyer Writes” Substack site, an inquiry concluded that the behavior of Lord Justice Lewis amounted to judicial bullying, resulting in disciplinary action.
Away from disciplinary issues, a fascinating essay by Ian Millhiser on Vox discusses the Supreme Court’s surprising moment of reticence in a case against the CFPB, raising questions about its potential impacts on financial stability.
Additionally, Lyle Denniston addresses fundamental constitutional considerations in a post on his blog, while Adam Serwer’s online essay for The Atlantic critiques the elaborate infrastructure supposedly built by conservative activists to reward ideological loyalty among Supreme Court justices.
The last note of the week comes from law professor, Erwin Chemerinsky, and his insightful Los Angeles Times essay, pondering the extent to which the Supreme Court justices are willing to alter constitutional law.
For a comprehensive list of stories, visit Howard Bashman’s original post.