All federal appellate courts but one and the federal circuit courts plan to continue live audio feeds of their proceedings post-COVID, Bloomberg News reports. The one exception is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to reveal whether its live streaming will continue. At an event this week in New York, Justice Elena Kagan said she expects the justices to discuss the future of live streaming when they gather for the first conference of the new term. Prior to the pandemic, just the D.C. Circuit and the 9th Circuit regularly provided a live feed of arguments. The 9th Circuit also went a step further, offering live video for arguments.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in remarks on Monday, cautioned that courts look political and forfeit legitimacy when they needlessly overturn precedent, the Associated Press reports. Speaking less than three months after the court overturned Roe v. Wade, Kagan said the public’s view of the court can be damaged, especially when changes in its membership lead to big changes in the law. She stressed she was not talking about any particular decision or even a string of rulings. Kagan struck a different tone from Chief Justice John Roberts, who spoke to a gathering of judges and lawyers in Colorado last week. At that event, Roberts said disagreement with a court opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. Kagan also briefly addressed the leak of the draft opinion in the abortion case. She said the leak made the justices’ jobs much harder. WJHL has the story.

At a meeting of judges and lawyers in Colorado on Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that criticism of the court’s controversial decisions has veered into attacks on its legitimacy as an institution. “People can say what they want,” he said. But “simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court." It is the first time Roberts has spoken publicly since the court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, Bloomberg reports. A number of political leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris, have called into question the court’s integrity following that decision. Yahoo News looks at that story. Roberts also used the speech to indicate that when the court resumes in October, it will reopen to the public.

A group representing state chief justices is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to shield actions taken by state legislatures affecting federal elections — such as reconfiguring electoral districts and imposing voting restrictions — from the scrutiny of state courts. Reuters reports that the bipartisan Conference of Chief Justices filed the brief yesterday in a case involving a map of congressional districts drawn by the North Carolina legislature. The state's top court struck the map down, concluding that the districts were intentionally biased against Democrats. Defenders of the map argue that the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts, authority over election rules, including the drawing of electoral districts. Yahoo News has the story.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today issued an order amending Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B in response to a petition filed by the Tennessee Trial Judges Association (TTJA) asking the court “to provide judges with authority to summarily deny repetitive recusal motions filed pursuant to section 1.01 of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, to provide appellate courts with a means of supplementing the record in Rule 10B appeals, to state that the scope of appellate review and relief in Rule 10B appeals is limited to affirming or reversing a trial court’s decision on a recusal motion, and to describe the procedures that should be followed on remand from an appellate court’s order reversing a trial court’s denial of a recusal motion.”

The TBA filed a comment in response to the TTJA’s proposal in which it supported the proposed changes to sections 1.01 and 2.05 as drafted, supported the purpose of the changes to section 1.03 but suggested a change in the proposed language to sections 1.03 and 2.06. The court agreed with the TTJA’s proposed changes to section 1.01 and 1.03 and added language clarifying that any subsequent motion filed under section 1.01 (seeking disqualification, recusal or a determination of constitutional or statutory incompetence of a judge) in the same case must state, with specificity, substantially different factual and legal grounds than those relied upon in support of a prior motion filed under this section, and if this requirement is not satisfied, the subsequent motion may be deemed repetitive and may be summarily denied by the judge without requiring a response to the motion, a hearing on it or any other written explanation for denying the motion as provided in section 1.03. The court also agreed with the TTJA’s proposed changes to section 2.05 allowing the appellate court, when reviewing the petition for recusal appeal, to remand to the trial court for the taking of proof and making further findings on matters designated by the appellate court. Finally, the court amended section 2.06 by adding that if an appellate court reverses a trial court’s order denying a motion under section 1.01, the appellate court shall remand the case for designation of a successor judge in accordance with section 1.04 of this rule.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and recently retired justice Stephen Breyer have been named honorary co-chairmen of a nonpartisan group devoted to educating the public about the Constitution. The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia said the pair will be spokesmen for civics education and civility in politics. The justices' decision to work together "is especially meaningful in this polarized time," said Jeffrey Rosen, the center's president. At the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago earlier this month, Breyer said, "The nonpartisan work of the National Constitution Center is essential, and I look forward to working with Justice Gorsuch to promote civil dialogue and debate." Read more from the center.

Legal educators, law student organizations, bar associations and law firms this week flooded the U.S. Supreme Court with amicus briefs asking it to uphold the use of affirmative action in college admissions, Reuters reports. The 15 groups filing briefs included the American Bar Association, the National Black Law Students Association, the National Women’s Law Center and the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association. They argue that affirmative action is key to diversifying the legal profession and addressing bias in the justice system and while race-conscious policies have helped grow the pipeline of minority lawyers, diversity still lags. The case before the court seeks to bar Harvard University and the University of North Carolina from considering race in undergraduate admissions.

The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to take up a Texas death penalty case in which the defendant was convicted on DNA evidence and testimony from a police laboratory that was later deemed unreliable by the state. The case represents the first opportunity for the ABA to bring its “Criminal Justice Standards on DNA Evidence” to the court’s attention, the group reports. The standards were approved as policy by the ABA House of Delegates in 2007 and recommended “minimum requirements for the collection, handling, analysis and use of DNA evidence in criminal cases.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday filed its final judgement overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade abortions right case, triggering a 30-day countdown to Tennessee’s near-total abortion ban, the Tennessean reports.  The “trigger ban” is set to supersede the six-week ban that has been in place since June. It contains no exceptions for rape or incest or for victims of child sexual abuse. Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery released a statement this afternoon announcing he had notified the Tennessee Code Commission of the judgement which, per the trigger ban legislation, is required of him for the countdown to begin. The ban will take effect on Aug. 25.

More than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade abortion rights case, Tennessee officials are still unclear on when the state’s anti-abortion “trigger ban” will take effect, the Associated Press reports. The ban, which would restrict abortion almost entirely, cannot be enacted until within 30 days after the Supreme Court enters a judgement on the Roe ruling. Attorney General Herbert Slatery said in June that the state could enforce the law by mid-August, but a spokesperson for the office yesterday said they were “not sure” if that timeline was still in place. State Democrats have already said they’ll introduce legislation to expand the list of exemptions under the law. Sen. Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City, who was a co-sponsor of the 2019 trigger ban legislation, told a legislative panel last week that he’d spoken with groups who think lawmakers should “fine-tune the trigger bill somewhat to make sure that we don’t get our docs in trouble when they’re trying to follow the law.”