WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, July 3

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Key takeaways from the Supreme Court term that upended Trump’s trial (Justin Jouvenal & Ann E. Marimow, The Washington Post)
• The terrifying SEAL Team 6 scenario lurking in the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling (Kelsey Griffin, Erica Orden, & Lara Seligman, Politico)
• Clarence Thomas Raised Another Issue: Was Jack Smith Legally Appointed? (Alan Feuer, The New York Times)
• The ‘MAGA Supreme Court’ Doesn’t Exist (Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal) 
• With 2024 election looming, should 2 Supreme Court justices call it quits? (Timothy O’Neill, Chicago Sun-Times)

OPINION ANALYSIS

Supreme Court expands time frame to sue federal agencies

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a North Dakota truck stop can bring a challenge to a regulation issued 13 years ago by the Federal Reserve Board. In a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the justices significantly expanded plaintiffs’ ability to sue federal regulators, ruling that the statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begins to run when the plaintiff is injured by the action, even if – as happened in this case – that happens long after the agency’s action occurs.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the case as “straightforward.” But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the dissenting liberal bloc, warned that the decision could have “staggering” implications, particularly in light of the court’s decision on June 28 eliminating the doctrine of deference to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the laws that it administers.

SCOTUS NEWS

Justices add five cases out of clean-up conference

The Supreme Court on Tuesday added five new cases – two of which will be argued together – to its docket for the 2024-25 term. The justices declined to take up a number of notable cases, including challenges to Illinois’s regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and a challenge to the power of federal administrative agencies, here the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The list of orders from the justices’ private conference on Monday was one of the court’s final acts before the justices begin their summer recess. Between now and the end of September the justices will likely issue orders to dispose of requests on the emergency docket and to deal with various administrative and procedural questions, but they normally do not grant new petitions for review during the recess.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, July 2

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic decision granting Donald Trump immunity (John Fritze, Tierney Sneed, & Devan Cole, CNN)
• Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Tech Platforms’ Free Speech Rights (Abbie VanSickle, David McCabe, & Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulators (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)
• Trump Seeks to Toss NY Felony Conviction After Immunity Win (Zoe Tillman & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg)
• 2023 Stat Review (Adam Feldman, Empirical SCOTUS)

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court sends social media moderation cases back to lower courts

The Supreme Court on Monday sent a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites back to the lower courts for another look. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court explained that both lower courts had focused too narrowly on how the laws applied to the challengers themselves, large social media companies including Facebook and YouTube, even though the cases challenged the constitutionality of the laws more broadly.

The court agreed to send the cases back to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 11th Circuits. But not all justices agreed with Kagan’s rebuke of the 5th Circuit, which signaled that, at least as it applies to the challengers in this case, the Texas law likely violates the First Amendment.