Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/YXzxKEy60wOvKn-QIC5hDHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place" title="Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-3-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place" title="Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-3-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-3-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-3-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-3-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&linkname=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&linkname=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&linkname=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&linkname=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&linkname=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fnonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place%2F&title=Nonprofits%20urge%20justices%20to%20leave%20judge%E2%80%99s%20reinstatement%20of%20federal%20employees%20in%20place" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/nonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place/" data-a2a-title="Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place">Share</a></p><p>A group of nonprofits challenging the layoffs of thousands of probationary employees urged the Supreme Court to leave in place an order by a federal judge in San Francisco that would require the federal government to reinstate more than 16,000 employees who were fired by six agencies in February. “It strains credulity that returning employees to work would cause irreparable harm to the Government,” the group said <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A904/354676/20250403113212959_No.24A904.ResponseEmergencyStayMassFirings.FINAL.pdf">in a 40-page filing</a>, “when these employees had the same workplaces, credentials, benefits, and training just a few weeks ago.”</p> <p>In the federal government, probationary employees are those who have been newly hired for a position, normally within the past year. Not all probationary employees are new to the federal government or the workforce, however; the term also applies to experienced federal employees who transfer to a new role. In February, the Trump administration fired tens of thousands of probationary employees as part of its broader effort to shrink the size of the federal workforce.</p> <p>The nonprofits that contend that layoffs could lead to fewer government services, affecting their members, went to federal court on Feb. 19, arguing that the Office of Personnel Management’s actions violated several different provisions of the federal law governing administrative agencies.</p> <p>The government insisted that OPM had not been responsible for any of the firings. But Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup concluded, based on a “mountain of evidence,” that “OPM directed other agencies to fire their probationary employees” under false pretenses – with the agencies citing poor performance but with OPM telling the agencies themselves that performance ratings did not matter in determining who should be fired.</p> <p>At a hearing on March 13, Alsup issued a preliminary injunction that ordered OPM and six agencies – the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and the Treasury – to immediately reinstate the probationary employees who had been fired.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit fast-tracked the government’s appeal, setting a briefing schedule that requires the government to file its opening brief on April 10, but declined to pause Alsup’s order while that appeal plays out.</p> <p>Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/office-of-personnel-management-v-american-federation-of-government-employees/">went to the Supreme Court on March 25</a>, asking the justices to intervene. Alsup’s ruling, she contended, allows “third parties” like the groups in this case to “highjack the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”</p> <p>In their filing on Thursday, the groups counter that the government is wrong when it contends that the groups lack a legal right to sue, known as standing, to challenge the firings of probationary employees. For example, they note, the termination of probationary employees who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs “has already had and will imminently continue to have serious negative consequences” for members of the veterans’ non-profit in the case.</p> <p>Nor is the government correct, the groups continue, when that it contends that “no one can challenge the illegal mass firing of federal employees by OPM, because the only way to challenge termination of federal employees is” for each individual employee to go to the Merit Systems Protection Board.</p> <p>And Alsup did not go beyond his power, the groups say, when he ordered the government to reinstate fired employees. Instead, he merely “restored the status quo that existed prior to OPM’s illegal conduct, and reinstatement is a routine remedy in the fact of illegal termination.”</p> <p>A federal district court in Maryland also issued an order that temporarily stopped the firings, and required the reinstatement, of probationary employees at 20 different federal agencies who live and work in the 19 states (along with the District of Columbia) that brought the case.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the government’s request to put that order on hold. The government’s efforts to comply with the district court’s order in this case, the groups suggest, establish that any burden on the government from complying with Alsup’s order to reinstate the fired probationary employees is not insurmountable.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/03/nonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/nonprofits-urge-justices-to-leave-judges-reinstatement-of-federal-employees-in-place/">Nonprofits urge justices to leave judge’s reinstatement of federal employees in place</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 4 min read
Read more →
Politics

Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HhgF8E8VkBYXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/cameras-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&title=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/" data-a2a-title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial">Share</a></p><p><em> </em><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p>Over the past couple of conferences, the Supreme Court has continued to clear out the rolls of relisted cases. Remarkably, the Supreme Court denied review without comment in the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-consider-next-steps-in-murder-case-in-which-prosecution-admits-error/">most recent newly relisted case</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/escobar-v-texas-2/"><em>Escobar v. Texas</em></a>, in which Texas conceded that erroneous DNA evidence had contributed to the defendant’s conviction for capital murder.</p> <p>The court denied review on March 24 in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franklin-v-new-york/"><em>Franklin v. New York</em></a>, involving the right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. But Justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf">Samuel Alito</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf#page=5">Neil Gorsuch</a>, in separate opinions respecting the denial of certiorari, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/alito-and-gorsuch-call-for-court-to-reconsider-confrontation-clause-precedent/">suggested that the court would need to revisit</a> the landmark 2004 decision in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7792517891204110362&q=crawford+v.+washington&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47"><em>Crawford v.Washington</em></a> that narrowed the use of hearsay testimony in criminal trials.<span id="more-319465"></span></p> <p>The court also denied review this week in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shockley-v-vandergriff/"><em>Shockley v. Vandergriff</em></a>, which asked the justices to decide whether the fact that an actual judge considered a prisoner’s claim to be meritorious was enough to demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate” the claim — the showing necessary for a prisoner to obtain the “certificate of appealability” necessary under federal law to appeal the denial of the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-517_4fc4.pdf">dissented from the denial of certiorari</a>.</p> <p>That brings us to the upcoming conference. There are 96 petitions and motions on the docket for this Friday’s conference. Only one of them is on its first relist: <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>.</p> <p>David Asa Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial in Texas state court for murdering his boyfriend and methamphetamine supplier Aaron Estrada. His direct examination was interrupted at noon by a lengthy overnight recess. The trial judge, in an instruction whose limits could charitably be described as “not a model of clarity,” told defense counsel to act as though Villarreal were still “on the stand,” and thus not to confer with him about his testimony overnight. In a series of offhand comments, the judge suggested counsel might still confer about sentencing and trial logistics, just not about Villarreal’s testimony. Villareal’s attorney objected that such an instruction interfered with his client’s right to confer with his counsel. The next day, Villarreal finished testifying, was convicted, and drew a 60-year sentence.</p> <p>Villarreal’s case implicates two aging Supreme Court criminal procedure precedents. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/80/"><em>Geders v. United States</em></a>, held that a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from speaking with his counsel during an overnight recess between the defendant’s direct and cross-examination. But <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/272/"><em>Perry v. Leeke</em></a>, 13 years later, held that a trial court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from consulting his counsel during a fifteen-minute recess between his direct testimony and cross-examination.</p> <p>By a 2-1 vote, the court of appeals affirmed Villarreal’s conviction, though noting confusion among the lower courts on the subject. And Texas’s highest court for criminal appeals, the aptly named Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, likewise affirmed by a divided vote. It concluded that by placing off limits only discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony, the trial court had complied with the Sixth Amendment.</p> <p>Villarreal now seeks review, asking the court for further guidance about the universe of circumstances not covered by <em>Geders</em> and <em>Perry</em>. Texas opposes review on the ground that, “[w]hile there is a split of authority concerning such orders,” orders restricting a defendant’s conferring with counsel during substantial recesses “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf#page=17">are rarely issued</a>.” The state argues that the decision in Villarreal’s case comports with the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment precedents.</p> <p>On the one hand, it has been a long, long time since the Supreme Court last weighed in on this issue: Most readers would consider me <a href="https://store.thanatos.net/cdn/shop/products/2021KY-650_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1658666493">an old man</a>, I have been practicing for over 30 years, and I didn’t even begin law school until <a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ylKuCU26L._SY355_.jpg">the year after <em>Perry</em> was decided</a>. But the current courts shows little appetite for weighing in on constitutional issues of trial practice. This case seems unlikely to result in more than an opinion dissenting from denial of review. I would be happy to eat crow on this.</p> <h3><strong>New Relists</strong></h3> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-557.html">24-557</a><br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.</p> <h3><strong>Returning Relists</strong></h3> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/"><em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-291.html">24-291</a><br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21b-religious-freedom-restoration/section-2000bb-1-free-exercise-of-religion-protected">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.<br /> (Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a><br /> <strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.<br /> (Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a><br /> <strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.<br /> (Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/l-m-v-town-of-middleborough-massachusetts/"><em>L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-410.html">24-410</a><br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.<br /> (Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/neilly-v-michigan/"><em>Neilly v. Michigan</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-395.html">24-395</a><br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether restitution ordered as part of a criminal sentence is punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br /> (Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ellingburg-v-united-states/"><em>Ellingburg v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-482.html">24-482</a><br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether criminal restitution under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-ii-criminal-procedure/chapter-232-miscellaneous-sentencing-provisions/section-3663a-mandatory-restitution-to-victims-of-certain-crimes">Mandatory Victim Restitution Act</a> is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br /> (Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/">Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 6 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Thursday, April 3

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/JRGcjwPpJAjJmf0NHsrmc3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Thursday, April 3" title="The morning read for Thursday, April 3"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Thursday, April 3" title="The morning read for Thursday, April 3" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%203" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Thursday, April 3">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://apnews.com/article/planned-parenthood-supreme-court-medicaid-south-carolina-d1c2b4d954ac2764d407dcdff76267ff">Supreme Court appears divided over whether states can cut off Planned Parenthood funding</a> (Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press)</li> <li><a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/04/02/nx-s1-5349352/supreme-court-medicaid-planned-parenthood">Supreme Court hears case that could see more Planned Parenthood clinics closed</a> (Nina Totenberg, NPR)</li> <li><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/02/planned-parenthood-south-carolina-supreme-court-abortion-funding/">Supreme Court seems to back Planned Parenthood in patient rights case</a> (Ann E. Marimow, The Washington Post)</li> <li><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-laments-mini-epidemic-of-shifting-arguments">Supreme Court Laments ‘Mini Epidemic’ of Shifting Arguments</a> (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law)</li> <li><a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/man-plead-guilty-attempted-assassination-us-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-2025-04-02/">Man to plead guilty to attempted assassination of US Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh</a> (Andrew Goudsward, Reuters) </li> </ul> <div class="post_content_holder"> <div class="post_text"> </div> </div> <div class="post_category"> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-3/">The morning read for Thursday, April 3</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →