Syndicated from SCOTUSblog. Read entire article here.
After a Hawaii district judge ruled that the federal government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling partially reinstating the president’s executive order on immigration was unduly restrictive, the federal government on Friday asked the Supreme Court to clarify the June 26 ruling. Amy Howe covers the government’s request for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Julia Edwards Ainsley and Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Richard Wolf at USA Today, and Steven Mazie in The Economist. In another post at his blog, Lyle Denniston charts the byzantine path the legal maneuverings over the travel ban have taken, observing that though “disputes in the federal courts often unfold in a familiar pattern,” the “judicial flow chart” in these cases “has looked more like a diagram for a ping-pong match.”
At Take Care, Leah Litman takes issue with each of the government’s arguments in favor of its restrictive interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order. At Just Security, Marty Lederman observes that “resolution of the government’s motion might well determine whether tens of thousands of people, most of them refugees fleeing terrible conditions, will be able to enter the United States.” At ACSblog, Shoba Wadhia argues that “[l]aw aside, the debate around ‘bona fide relationship’ raises fundamental questions about culture, identity and family,” and that “[b]anning or restricting a grandparent or aunt based on the absence of a ‘bona fide’ relationship undermines not only the jurisprudence around family but also the experiences of first and second generation immigrants living in the United States.”
- At the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Stephen Saltzburg looks at Turner v. United States, in which the court upheld the convictions of the defendants in a murder trial against a claim that the prosecutors had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; he argues that the “reality of Turner is that it adds nothing new of substance to the Brady line of cases.”
- At Jost on Justice, Ken Jost weighs in on Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law banning access by registered sex offenders to some social-media sites, observing that the decision “injected some uncommon good sense into the debate driven generally by irrational panic and flawed statistics over how the criminal justice system should deal with sex offenders.”
- At Bloomberg BNA, Perry Cooper reports that “[t]wo federal appeals courts may have muddied the waters on the test for class action membership even further—just in time for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether to take up the issue.”
Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.