The big case for December, NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York, could fizzle for mootness. New York City restricted the transportation of firearms to within the city limits but that regulation has since been rescinded, and, as several justices pointed out during the argument, the petitioner has got what they asked for.
There were, of course, other important cases argued this month but since I have fallen so far behind in my blog postings I will simply post the sketches and let the viewer search for the details. I know, I’m lazy.
On Tuesday the Justices heard arguments on the Trump administration’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, and a cross-border shooting case, Hernandez v. Mesa. Here are the sketches.
Naturally a special banner was in order for the World Series champion Washington Nationals. The last time Washington won the Series was 1924 when the Senators beat the New York Giants.
The Court’s November sitting started on Monday with and immigration case, Barton v. Barr, followed by Fourth Amendment case, Kansas v. Glover, about a traffic stop. I didn’t get to sketch Tuesday and Wednesday’s argument as I was in District Court for the Roger Stone trial.
I’ve been neglecting the blog lately. My excuse is that it was being updated, but really I’m just lazy and reluctant to tackle the minor changes that have been made. With that said, I’ll just post the sketches from the second week of October arguments, without comment, before it’s too late. The November sitting begins tomorrow.
Justice Thomas was absent from the bench – “indisposed due to illness” said the Chief Justice after formally announcing the beginning of the new term.
The Justices then heard argument in the first case, Kahler v. Kansas, on whether states can abolish the insanity defense. Under a recent change to the “Guide for Counsel Arguing Cases” lawyers are now allowed two minutes, uninterrupted, to make their case before the justices jump in with questions. A light on the lectern briefly flashed before Justice Ginsburg jumped in with the first question of the term.
In addition to another morning argument, which I did not attend, the Court heard a rare afternoon argument in Ramos v. Louisiana on the requirement for state juries to reach unanimous verdicts.
In the new term’s first blockbuster the Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in three cases of LGBTQ employment rights under Title VII.
Other than to observe that Justice Gorsuch seemed to be on the fence, “. . . It’s close, okay? We’re not talking about extra-textual stuff.”. . .
. . . and that Justice Ginsburg sported a bright red collar with matching earrings and scrunchie . . .
. . . I’ll let the sketches speak for themselves. ( Truth is, like walking and chewing gum, I find it difficult to listen and draw at the same time. )