NEW at SCOTUS: Trump administration returns to the Supreme Court with an emergency request to keep the president's financial records out of the hands of a NY grand jury.
Correction: this is Trump in his personal capacity, the administration.
Barrett just told @SenBlumenthal that Loving v. Virginia (striking down mixed-race marriage bans) was based directly on Brown v. Board of Ed and was therefore correctly decided—but she can't opine on Griswold or Obergefell.
Her characterization of Loving is not quite right. 1/4
Brown v. Board was based *only* the Equal Protection Clause: the idea that separate schools are inherently unequal. The Court explicitly declined to consider whether segregation is also unconstitutional under substantive due process. 2/4
Loving, on the other hand, was based on *both* the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, with *more* analysis devoted to the latter. It is a substantive due-process case, much like Griswold (right to contraception) and Obergefell (marriage equality). 3/4
BREAKING: Trump administration files emergency application to halt census count at the Supreme Court
Federal government wanted to stop count by end of September but was blocked by a district court and the 9th circuit declined to lift the stay. Now Trump administration is asking the justices to intervene.
BREAKING: SCOTUS reinstates witness requirement for South Carolina mail-in ballots, blocking lower court order that had waived requirement due to COVID-19.
No noted dissents. Justice Kavanaugh is the only justice to explain his reasoning in this concurrence
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have reinstated the witness req. for all ballots. But the majority waived that requirement for ballots that have already gone into the mail and are received by this Wednesday.
Gist of the decision, which is 7-2 (with Alito and Thomas in dissent): lower courts did not take an adequate look at the special concerns involved when Congress subpoenas information about a president.