Wednesday round-up

Marcia Coyle reviews for The Countrywide Regulation Journal that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court’s extraordinary postponement of its March argument session injected new uncertainty into a significant-stakes course of action for a modest team of advocates and their customers who mentioned now they will do the job ‘to continue to be fresh’ in hopes of receiving their transform at the lectern.” At The Each day Signal, Elizabeth Slattery writes that “[t]he court docket made the proper contact in postponing the impending March arguments, not only to safeguard the justices’ well being, but also the well being of all the other persons who would be present in the courtroom.” In an op-ed at CNN (via How Desirable), Elie Honig argues that the court docket “went much too far in postponing oral arguments entirely when it conveniently could have conducted individuals arguments as scheduled by live online video feed.”

Briefly:

• At Notes on Liberty, Ethan Blevins urges the court docket “to come to a decision two urgent inquiries about the Constitution’s part in shielding assets rights” in a situation stemming from a rule in Seattle that demands landlords to “rent to the 1st individual to wander in the doorway, so prolonged as they examine out on paper.”

We rely on our readers to send us inbound links for our round-up. If you have or know of a latest (published in the previous two or 3 times) posting, post, podcast or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court docket that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, remember to send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared 1st on SCOTUSblog.