The U.S. Supreme Court took up one of the most closely watched cases of the term today, SCOTUSBlog reports. The case is a Republican-backed appeal of a decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map of the state's congressional districts approved by the state legislature. The Republicans are relying on a legal theory called the "independent state legislature" doctrine, which holds the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures, not state courts, the power over election rules and electoral maps. Politico reports that the justices “struggled to find consensus” about the theory but a “critical bloc … seemed likely to reject the most robust version,” which could “unleash dramatic change in how states oversee elections.”

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and a coaltion of 25 states and the District of Columbia have filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google. The brief urges the high court to interpret Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (1996) narrowly to ensure technology companies remain accountable to state consumer protection laws. It explains that the judicial expansion of internet “publisher” immunity under Section 230 has severely hampered their ability to remedy internet-related wrongs. The Attorney General’s Office has more on the story.  

The U.S. Supreme Court today took up a dispute involving an evangelical Christian web designer who refuses to provide her services for same-sex marriages. The case pits LGBT rights against an argument that the constitutional right to free speech exempts artists from anti-discrimination laws, Reuters reports. Denver area businesswoman Kristen Waggoner is seeking an exemption from a state law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other factors. Lower courts ruled in favor of the state.

The Supreme Court today agreed to review the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan, but the justices declined to immediately revive the program, reports The Hill. In a brief unsigned order, the court indicated it would hear arguments in the case in February. The move comes after the administration urged the Supreme Court last month to clear one of the legal obstacles blocking the policy. The administration is currently fending off two separate rulings issued in recent weeks that have effectively halted the student loan forgiveness plan, which would give federal borrowers making less than $125,000 a year up to $10,000 debt relief. Separately, the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last night denied the administration’s request to revive the policy while it appeals a lower court ruling.

Six states last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject President Joe Biden's bid to reinstate his plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt the while constitutionality of the program is challenged in court, CNN reports. The Republican-led states argue that Biden’s executive order exceeded the administration's authority and should be paused while the merits of the case are decided. The administration had earlier asked the high court to lift the order pausing the program. In related news, the administration also last week extended a halt on loan repayments while the issue remains in litigation. Under the new order, payments will resume 60 days after the debt cancellation program is implemented, 60 days after lawsuits are resolved, or 60 days after June 30, 2023, if litigation fails. National Public Radio has more on that action.

The Biden Administration today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order that blocked the president’s student loan relief program, The Washington Post reports. That order, issued Monday, came in a suit brought by six Republican-led states. Implementation of the plan has been on hold since Oct. 21, when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay. Last week, in yet another a case — this one brought by two borrowers — a federal judge in Texas struck down the plan as unlawful as well. In that case, the U.S. government already has asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday authored her first Supreme Court opinion – a dissent from the court’s refusal to hear a death penalty case, the ABA Journal reports. Jackson said the Supreme Court should have heard the appeal by Davel Chinn, who argued that a federal appeals court used the wrong standard when evaluating the impact of the prosecution’s failure to disclose that a star witness had an intellectual disability. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson’s dissent. Read the dissent here.  

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett again today denied an emergency effort to block the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program, her second such ruling in recent weeks, The Hill reports. Barrett, who handles emergency matters arising from several Midwestern states, acted alone rather than referring the matter to the full court. The brief, one-line order came after a challenge to the program by the libertarian group Pacific Legal Foundation. Barrett's earlier ruling came in a suit from a group of Wisconsin taxpayers seeking to block the plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled several weeks ago that the program should be put on hold while challenges play out.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s busy November schedule — which kicked off yesterday — is the topic of the latest episode of "Cases and Controversies" podcast from Bloomberg Law. Reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed on closely watched financial reporting litigation and a pair of criminal cases slated for argument. “Affirmative Action, Habeas, and Supreme Court Stamp” also breaks down what’s been happening outside of the courtroom. This includes two emergency requests stemming from the 2020 presidential election, new comments from Justice Samuel Alito on last term’s draft opinion leak, and the next Supreme Court postage stamp. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Audible, Google Podcasts, Megaphone, Spotify or Stitcher.

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of race-conscious admissions policies in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina today, The Hill reports. Over nearly five hours of oral argument, the justices posed sharp questions about admissions programs that consider the race of applicants in order to achieve student body diversity. They also appeared receptive to arguments by the conservative challengers, Students for Fair Admissions, who argued that the schools had impermissibly weighed race in admissions decisions.