The legal community is set to experience a marked shift in the delivery and analysis of Supreme Court news with the introduction of SCOTUStoday, an expansion of the already popular SCOTUSblog’s Morning Read. This latest development, announced to commence on Monday, will integrate the familiar “Morning Reads” with new features such as “SCOTUS Quick Hits,” providing updates on court activities, “A Closer Look,” which offers insightful pieces on specific judicial topics, and “On Site,” an overview of notable SCOTUSblog articles (SCOTUSblog).
The latest Morning Read for Friday, September 19, draws attention to several engaging debates and discussions regarding Supreme Court deliberations and associated legal challenges. Prominent among these is a spirited exchange on judicial response to the Trump administration, featured in The Dispatch’s Debate Series, with differing perspectives presented by Jonathan H. Adler and Erwin Chemerinsky. While Adler argues for the court’s diligent performance, pinpointing issues such as judicial overreach and legislative inaction, Chemerinsky critiques the court’s inefficacy in curbing perceived executive overreach (Adler), (Chemerinsky).
Another feature from WHYY discusses Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appearance at the National Constitution Center, where she spoke on various topics, including her new book and the dynamics of writing opinions on the emergency docket. Barrett reflects on the complexities and time-consuming nature of crafting opinions that garner majority agreement (WHYY).
The decision of the Supreme Court to potentially re-examine its landmark ruling on climate regulation is highlighted in an article from The Harvard Gazette. The article suggests that legal challenges may follow the Trump administration’s plan to retract emission regulations and the foundational “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act (The Harvard Gazette).
In an engaging analysis for Politico, legal scholar Aziz Huq argues that comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who faces repercussions allegedly due to his criticism of the Trump administration, may have legal grounds for a First Amendment lawsuit against both ABC and the relevant government authorities (Politico).
Lastly, the Wall Street Journal presents a compelling argument by Mark Rienzi and G. Marcus Cole in defense of the Western Apache’s religious freedom concerning disputed mining operations at Oak Flat, Arizona. In their critique of former U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s assessments, they highlight the unique religious significance of the site and the potential legal backing from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch (Wall Street Journal).