House to vote on number of justices

Two Republican groups have asked the court on its interim docket to block a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit preventing political parties and joint fundraising committees from paying preferential broadcast rates for political ads. The court has asked the four Democrats who challenged the groups’ access to more favorable rates to respond to the request by noon EDT on Thursday.

In another interim docket dispute, a Michigan group has urged the court to require Michigan election officials to put on the November ballot its proposal for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state. Michigan officials’ response to that request is due by noon EDT today.

This Friday at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the court will release its third and final summer order list. (We discussed what these lists typically address in our July 13 newsletter.)

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters “that the House would vote on a constitutional amendment to cap the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine.” “Johnson criticized the Democratic Socialists of America over their calls to pack the Supreme Court and insisted the chamber would force Democrats to go on the record on the issue” in a Wednesday vote. “My background’s in constitutional law and litigation. We know that the nine justices of the Supreme Court has been the model that has served this country for many, many years, and it does not need to change. If we go down the road of packing the Supreme Court, it turns into a political palooza, and it would not serve the country,” Johnson said. A proposed constitutional amendment needs two-thirds support in the House and Senate before it goes to states to be ratified.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016, the remaining justices realized he “had left no plans for his working papers.” “For a Supreme Court justice, this was the equivalent of dying without a will.” In response, the justices “entered into private negotiations to try to head off any such situation in the future.” Citing “several people with knowledge of the process,” The New York Times reported that “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led the surviving justices in discussions about imposing a more uniform seal for their own papers.” The Times’ anonymous sources “recalled that a consensus was reached, but had differing memories of its terms and how solid or lasting it was.” The fate of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court papers may hint at what was decided: After her death in 2020, her “papers went, at her direction, to the Library of Congress on the condition that no case file would be opened until every justice involved in the matter had died, a restriction that could lock away many documents for decades.”

This fall, after Americans mark the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Supreme Court will consider whether to “weigh in on the disposal of controversial plea agreements” offered to two men allegedly involved in planning 9/11, according to Courthouse News Service. “Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the man accused of plotting the attacks, and one of his coconspirators, Mustafa al-Hawsawi,” have asked the justices to consider their effort to reinstate plea agreements that would take the death penalty off the table once they admit guilt. The “agreements were viewed by victims, the defendants and prosecutors as a way to bring closure to the case after it was derailed by the government’s now-infamous torture program. But former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin tried to withdraw the agreements. Two military courts found the withdrawal unlawful, but the D.C. Circuit overturned the decisions.” Courthouse News Service noted that “[s]everal Sept. 11 victim groups filed an in support of Mohammad and al-Hawsawi’s appeal. While imperfect, the victims argued the plea agreements were a crucial step in holding the men responsible for their involvement in the attacks. They argued the D.C. Circuit’s ruling deprived them of closure.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request for it to clear the way for construction to continue on the new White House ballroom. The 5-4 interim docket , in which the majority said “that the historic preservationist nonprofit that sued likely doesn’t have legal grounds, or standing, to contest the project,” could spell doom for “legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s other efforts to leave his mark on Washington’s historic landmarks,” including the Kennedy Center and Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which involve the same or similar historic preservationist groups. By narrowing the criteria for standing, the court left “a smaller group of potential litigants to bring these cases,” which may include “those who own property near a historic landmark or who have more direct ties to the landmark in dispute,” legal experts told Bloomberg Law. The decision also “sen[t] a signal to Americans this court is not going to make it easy for them to stand up for historic properties that are owned by all Americans,” said Greg Werkheiser, an attorney and co-founder of Cultural Heritage Partners.

Last month, MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump, lost “the GOP primary for governor of Minnesota.” But Lindell has so far refused to accept that result and may bring his quest for a recount all the way to the Supreme Court. He told NBC News that he planned to appeal to the justices after “[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court on Saturday rejected Lindell’s bid for a full recount of his Aug. 11 loss to state House Speaker Lisa Demuth.” “Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson wrote in a six-page ruling that the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office and its State Canvassing Board provided a recount plan that follows the law and are ‘not committing any wrongful act, omission, or error,’” contrary to what Lindell had claimed in lawsuit seeking a full recount.