SCOTUS has a rule that lawyers must take a covid test before arguing ... much like the testing rule that OSHA is trying to impose on other workplaces, & that the Court may very well invalidate!
update: the answer is yes. one of the lawyers challenging the federal government's attempt to regulate the spread of COVID-19 (by testing and/or vaccinating) contracted COVID-19....
Argument starts in the OSHA case! The Chief says Justice Sotomayor is participating remotely as is Ohio SG Flowers (who tested positive for COVID-19, but the Chief doesn't say that).
Scott Keller -- former Texas SG -- starts (he is arguing for NFIB).
Justice Thomas asks how to determine whether a rule/requirement is necessary. And asks Keller to explain why necessary doesn't mean what McCulloch said necessary (in the Constitution) meant -- i.e., not actually necessary.
"that no factfinder could have found the prisoner guilty is NOT ENOUGH," Arizona lawyer says, emphasizing that yes, indeed, their position can result in the execution of innocent people.
Thomas: 'Martinez procedural default exception would be worthless if litigants could not introduce evidence to support their claim that trial counsel was ineffective.' Please explain?
Justice Breyer: please listen to @StrictScrutiny_ before oral argument & heed our advice next time.
Justice Alito: imagine a woman goes into court asking for damages against her abortion provider because it harmed her under SB8. Would a court have to dismiss that?
Today at #SCOTUS features some of the best appellate advocates arguing for righteous causes: Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, arguing for EMW Women's Surgical Center, in Case #1.
And then @theamirali will take the podium to argue for Larry Thompson in Case #2.
As we mentioned in our @StrictScrutiny_ preview of EMW, the issue is ~whether SCOTUS will enforce normal rules of waiver & jurisdiction where a state official is trying to chip away at abortion rights (by asking SCOTUS to say abortion providers lack standing to challenge regs)