What two rulings about COVID vaccine mandates tell us about the future of the administrative state under this configuration of the Supreme Court. Plus, updates on Texas abortion rights, executive privilege in the Jan. 6 investigations, and Breyer! Listen to the episode. [Cross posted from Learnconlaw.com]
The big Supreme Court news yesterday was Justice Stephen Breyer's announcement of his decision to retire and that President Biden will have the opportunity to nominate a replacement.
For years, cities across the country have limited who may carry a gun in public. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether these limits violate the 2nd Amendment.
Editor’s note: A federal court in Texas delivered a blow to an Obama-era federal program shielding hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from being deported.
by Lisa R. Pruitt & Ezera Miller-Walfish, Class of 2022
Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent voting rights decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee was very bad news for rural residents (and, indeed, all voters) in terms of the precedent set, there is perhaps a silver lining to be found in the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. That dissent took the concept of distance–rural spatiality–more seriously than any faction of the Supreme Court has ever done.
In the 2020 Term, the Supreme Court decided five immigration cases. The U.S. government prevailed in four of the five cases, an 80 percent success rate. This rate was higher than that seen in recent Terms. In my estimation, there are no blockbusters among the five immigration decisions. The decisions primarily focused on interpreting the complexities of the Immigration & Nationality Act. The cases are in the chronological order of their decision.
