This week’s roundup of crucial legal news from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the internet’s pioneer blog for appellate litigation, brings a medley of significant stories underpinning contemporary legal matters.
An important concern in the spotlight originates from the realm of the Supreme Court. Shawn Musgrave, through his report at The Intercept, highlights a considerable gap in the rules of the Supreme Court for tracking the intricate relationships between litigants and influence groups. Especially interesting is the fact that parties appearing before the Court can fund the groups filing briefs in support of their arguments but have almost no obligation to disclose such funding. Full report.
An insightful analysis by Joan Biskupic of CNN discusses Chief Justice John Roberts’ disappointment with a previous ruling against Trump and explores the repercussions of this sentiment. Complete analysis here.
Simultaneously, Michael C. Dorf elaborates on another Trump-related controversy in a post on his blog. He discusses the surfeit of issues presented in Trump v United States. Read the post here.
Editorial criticism from the Newark Star-Ledger argues that a judge selection process has been undermined by prejudice and disinformation. Full editorial here.
Additional noteworthy pieces presented on Slate and Vox provide further food for thought. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern write two interesting Jurisprudence essays while Ian Millhiser discusses a Supreme Court case that could potentially simplify the procedure for criminals to purchase firearms. Find the Slate articles here and here. The Vox article can be accessed here.