How Appealing Weekly Roundup

Gavel, scales of justice and law books

(Image via Getty)

Ed. note: A weekly roundup of just a few items from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the Web’s first blog devoted to appellate litigation. Check out these stories and more at How Appealing.

“Diplomats in Robes? The Supreme Court’s Unwelcome Forays Into Foreign Policy.” Aziz Huq and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar have this essay online at Foreign Affairs.

“Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race could be the beginning of the end for GOP dominance; The stakes of this down ballot race could have a domino effect on abortion rights, the House majority — and maybe the 2024 presidential election”: Zach Montellaro and Megan Messerly of Politico have this report.

“‘Racist taint.’ Will the Supreme Court review a Jim Crow-era voting ban targeted at Black Mississippians?” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“The Difference Between a Bad Joke and Not a Joke”: At his “Dorf on Law” blog, Michael C. Dorf has a post that begins, “Last week’s oral argument in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Prods., LLC was difficult to handicap.”

“20. ‘Munsingwear Vacaturs’: A dissent from Justice Jackson criticized the Court’s growing use of summary orders to wipe away lower-court rulings after appeals become moot; If anything, she understated the problems.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.


(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)