Monday round-up

This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC and Betterman v. Montana. Ross Runkel previewed CRST for this blog, with other coverage coming from law students Ben Rosales and Thomas Nomura Kim for Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Rory Little previewed Betterman for us, with other coverage coming from law students Ben Einhouse and Victor Pinedo for Cornell.

Profiles of Judge Merrick Garland, who has been nominated to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, comes from Amy Goldstein (who, by the way, is not me) and Tom Hamburger of The Washington Post, as well as a team of reporters for The New York Times.

Coverage relating to the politics of the nomination comes from Chris Geidner and John Stanton of BuzzFeed, Emmarie Huetteman in The New York Times (with another story here), and David Herszenhorn in The New York Times. Commentary comes from Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker,

And coverage relating to the vacancy on the Court more generally comes from Margaret Hartmann, who at New York looks at cases that could end in an equally divided Court; commentary comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice also weighs in on four-to-four ties.


  • In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration may be required), Tony Mauro reports that “Justice Clarence Thomas will replace his late colleague Antonin Scalia for a summer teaching position in France in July—the first of possibly several substitutes for Scalia, who taught abroad frequently.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes last week’s oral arguments in Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, in which the Court is considering whether federal bankruptcy law preempts a Puerto Rico law intended to allow the commonwealth’s public utilities to restructure their debts.
  • More commentary on last week’s oral arguments in oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the accommodation offered to religious non-profit groups that do not wish to provide access to birth control for their female employees and students, comes from Justin Sadowsky at Dubitante.
  • In The Atlantic, Bridgette Dunlap argues that litigation challenging economic regulations could be affected by the outcome in the challenge to Texas’s abortion regulations.
  • At Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses last week’s decision in the Indian reservation diminishment case Nebraska v. Parker.
  • At the National Conference of State Legislatures, Soronen summarizes last week’s decision in the class action case Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.
  • And at Knowledge Center, Soronen looks back at the decision in Sturgeon v. Frost, the case of an Alaskan moose hunter.
  • At Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck looks ahead to this week’s argument in S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., which he characterizes as presenting “a thorny issue of finality when the determination imposes a draconian choice.”

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]

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Zubik. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]