At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle stories that, in a temporary opposing cert in Frank v. Gaos,  “Google Inc. has told the U.S. Supreme Court there was nothing unfair or unreasonable about the tech company’s $8.5 million settlement of a class action in which $5.3 million of the funds go to third parties and none to members of the class.” At Reuters, Alison Frankel appears at each side’ arguments within the case, which asks whether or not “cy pres – the practice of distributing class action settlement money to court-approved charities instead of class members – perverts the intention of the federal rules enabling class actions.”


  • At the Constitutional Accountability Center, Ashwin Phatak appears at Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility, a cert petition that “raises a critically important question about prisoners’ ability to access the court system.”
  • At the Whistleblowers Protection Blog, Aaron Jordan highlights an amicus temporary supporting “FBI whistleblower John Parkinson’s [cert petition]seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision denying veterans’ preference-eligible FBI employees the right to raise whistleblowing as an affirmative defense in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
  • At ThinkProgress, Kyla Mandell weighs in on a cert petition through which “[m]ining groups [have asked] the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an Obama-era rule banning uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park in the latest push to open up public lands to industry.”
  • Also at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser calls National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment problem through disaster-being pregnant facilities to a California regulation requiring disclosures in regards to the availability of publicly funded circle of relatives-making plans services and products, together with birth control and abortion, “a different kind of abortion case — one that forces the Court to untangle a difficult First Amendment web woven by its own decisions.”
  • At Vinson & Elkins’ Lincoln’s Law Blog, Ralph Mayrell and John Elwood track the 10 False Claims Act circumstances recently at the Supreme Court’s docket.
  • Subscript gives a graphic explainer for Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, through which the justices will believe tribal immunity from state-court docket movements to adjudicate name to land.
  • At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard analyzes the oral arguments in Ohio v. American Express Co., which comes to the appliance of antitrust regulation to credit score-card-community anti-guidance laws, and Rosales-Mireles v. United States, which asks when misguided packages of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines will have to be corrected on simple-error evaluation.
  • At his eponymous weblog, Lyle Denniston stories that the federal government has advised the decrease court docket that it “wants the controversy over the ‘DACA’ program for younger undocumented immigrants to be back at the Supreme Court in time for initial action before the Justices’ summer recess.”

We depend on our readers to ship us hyperlinks for our round-up.  If you could have or know of a up to date (revealed within the closing two or 3 days) article, put up, podcast, or op-ed in terms of the Supreme Court that you just’d like us to believe for inclusion within the round-up, please ship it to roundup [at] Thank you!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation:
Edith Roberts,
Tuesday round-up,
SCOTUSblog (Mar. 13, 2018, 7:34 AM),