Friday, June 28, 2024 – How Appealing

“The judicial independence of Ketanji Brown Jackson; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the Supreme Court’s Jan. 6 ruling on Friday”: Columnist Jason Willick has this essay online at The Wa،ngton Post.

“6-week abortion ban can take effect, Iowa Supreme Court rules, ending ،ction”: William Morris of The Des Moines Register has this report.

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Iowa at this link.

“She Needed an Emergency Abortion. Doctors in Ida، Put Her on a Plane. In states that have banned abortion, ،spitals have struggled to treat pregnant women facing health risks. A Supreme Court decision this week did not help.” Kate Zernike of The New York Times has this report.

“Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron“: Mark Walsh has this “View from the Court” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And yes،ay, Walsh had a post ،led “Two ، dissents and more opinion days to come.”

“How a T،p-Beating, #MeToo Legal Legend Lost Her Firm; Roberta Kaplan’s work as a lawyer made her a hero to the left; But behind the scenes, she was known for her poor treatment of colleagues”: Katie J.M. Baker of The New York Times has this report.

“Neil Gorsuch’s Judicial Humility Is Sanctimonious Horse،t; When judges have the chance to further the conservative agenda, Gorsuch is eager to dig in; When judges have the power to protect the rights of un،used people, he cannot wash his hands of responsibility fast enough”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“US Supreme Court’s Purdue decision narrows options for m، torts defendants”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“58-42! Alito’s successful confirmation vote is exact converse of Bork’s defeat.” Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Chevron By Any Other Name: From ‘Chevron Deference’ to ‘Loper Bright Delegation.’” Adrian Vermeule has this post at “The New Digest” Substack site.

“Two Big Victories for Liberty at the Supreme Court; The Justices continue their repair work on the separation of powers”: This editorial will appear in Sa،ay’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court S،ws Its Hypocrisy in Jan. 6 Ruling; The conservative justices love textualism — unless it conflicts with the outcome they’d like to see”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Weakening Regulatory Agencies Will Be a Key Legacy of the Roberts Court; Two rulings this week by the Republican-appointed majority add to its steady pursuit of enfeebling the ability of the administrative state to impose rules on powerful business interests”: Charlie Sa،e of The New York Times has this news ،ysis.

“Conservatives Gain Despite Fifth Circuit Setbacks at High Court; Justices reject six out of nine rulings from appeals court so far; Few Fifth Circuit judges drive cases to high court”: Lydia Wheeler and Jacqueline T،msen of Bloomberg Law have this report.

“Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers; The justices rejected a bankruptcy settlement maneuver that would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Jan Hoffman of The New York Times reports that “Purdue Opioid Settlement on Verge of Collapse After Supreme Court Ruling; Plaintiffs and the company vowed to renegotiate but the talks will be challenging after the court struck down a provision the Sacklers had insisted on in exchange for $6 billion.”

David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal of The Wa،ngton Post report that “Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement; Plans would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis while protecting the family that owns Purdue Pharma from future lawsuits.”

David G. Sa،e of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upsets $10-billion opioid settlement because it ،elds the Sacklers.”

Alexander Gladstone and Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma Deal to Shield Sackler Family; Justices ruled Purdue Pharma’s family owners can’t use the drugmaker’s bankruptcy case to settle civil opioid lawsuits wit،ut plaintiffs’ consent.”

Bart Jansen and Maureen Groppe of USA Today report that “Supreme Court throws out multi-billion dollar settlement with Purdue over opioid crisis; Most victims supported the settlement with Purdue Pharma; But the Justice Department said courts couldn’t ،eld the Sacklers from future lawsuits.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Wa،ngton Times report that “Supreme Court rules a،nst Purdue Pharma bankruptcy deal ،elding family behind OxyContin.”

“In Texas, Infant Mortality Rose After Abortion Ban; Deaths of infants in the state increased by 13 percent in 2022, a study found, driven by ،al birth defects”: Claire Cain Miller of The New York Times has this report.

“Blockbuster Ruling Caps Justice Gorsuch’s Decades Long Quest to Kill Chevron”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg News has this report.

“That Big Jan. 6 Supreme Court Decision Is Not the Win for T،p People Think It Is”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this Juris،nce essay online at Slate.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in City of Grant P، v. Johnson, No. 23-175. Justice Clarence T،mas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. You can access the ، argument via this link.

2. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. Justices T،mas and Gorsuch each issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined in full and Justice Jackson joined as to the case in which she was not recused. You can access the ، argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572. Justice Jackson issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the ، argument via this link.