Tennessee yesterday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a 48-hour waiting period for abortions while the case challenging it makes its way through the appeals process, Reuters reports. The 2015 law requires women to wait at least 48 hours before moving forward with an abortion. It was struck down by a district court judge in October who said the law placed an unconstitutional burden on women. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February denied the state’s request to stay the lower court’s order, but the appeal was allowed to proceed. In its filing with the high court, the state noted that 14 other states have similar laws, but that “Tennessee is the only state in the nation that cannot enforce its law because of a federal judicial decree.” It further defended the law, saying that “some women will choose abortion without making an ‘informed and deliberate’ decision ... and some will later come to regret that irreversible decision.”

The U.S. Supreme Court last Thursday made it easier for businesses to annoy consumers with phone calls or text messages when it rejected a lawsuit accusing Facebook Inc. of violating a federal anti-robocall law. Facebook argued that the texts contained security-related messages tied to a user’s account and cell phone number and therefore were not covered by the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court ruled unanimously for Facebook saying the messages did not fit within the technical definition of the type of conduct barred by the law, Reuters reports. Privacy advocates criticized the ruling, saying any company could steer clear of liability under the law as long as they use similar technology.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday reinstated the death sentence of Tennessee inmate Anthony Hines, reversing a lower court decision that Hines had received inadequate defense counsel, The Hill reports. Hines was convicted of the 1985 murder of a maid, but was granted a new trial by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit last year. The appeals court ruled that Hines’ lawyer had failed to advance an alternative legal theory that pinned the murder on another man. SCOTUS reversed that ruling in an 8-1 decision, which found that any shortcomings in Hines’ defense failed to clear the high legal hurdle needed to set aside his conviction. The justices also ruled that the 6th Circuit failed to take into account evidence supporting Hines’ guilt, including “His flight in a bloody shirt; his possession of the victim’s keys, wallet, and car; his recurring association with knives; or his ever-changing stories about tussling with imaginary assailants.”      

Just in time for the final rounds of March Madness, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes battle between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and a legal class of student-athletes from the top revenue-producing sports of football and men’s and women’s basketball. At the heart of the case is whether the NCAA will be allowed to preserve the amateur nature of college sports and distinguish it from pro sports, the ABA Journal reports. The NCAA argues that lower courts have erroneously redefined amateurism to find antitrust violations with restrictions on education-related compensation of student athletes. The student athletes argue the NCAA is seeking “nothing less than an outright exemption” from federal antitrust law. The case is set for argument on March 31.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a woman shot by police while fleeing has the same Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure as a person who is detained, the ABA Journal reports. The 5-3 ruling saw Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett Kavanaugh join with the court’s more liberal justices. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote, “The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.” However, he stressed the decision is narrow and does not apply to every physical contact between a government employee and a member of the public. “A seizure requires the use of force with intent to restrain. Accidental force will not qualify … Nor will force intentionally applied for some other purpose,” Roberts wrote.

Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus have introduced legislation to create a monument in honor of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the U.S. Capitol or on capitol grounds, WSMV reports. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. Ginsburg died in September 2020 at age 87 after serving for 27 years on the high court.

The Biden administration is moving forward with the creation of a bipartisan commission to study reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, Politico reports. The commission will be housed under the purview of the White House Counsel’s office. Not all members have been named yet but those that have been include co-chair Cristina Rodríguez, a professor at Yale Law School; Caroline Fredrickson, former president of the American Constitution Society; and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration. During the 2020 election, President Joe Biden said he would form a commission to study structural changes at the court if elected.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is praising federal courts nationwide for their flexibility in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging in his annual year-end report the role technology has played in keeping courts running, the Associated Press reports. “Although we look forward to returning to normal sittings in our Courtroom, we have been able to stay current in our work. Other appellate courts around the country have responded with similar considered flexibility,” Roberts wrote in the seven-page report.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that it is too early to resolve the legality of the Trump administration’s plan to exclude people who are in the country illegally from the state-by-state breakdown used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives. The decision puts at least a temporary end to the litigation challenging the president’s plan, SCOTUSBlog reports. But it leaves open the possibility that plan opponents could return to court if the administration attempts to implement it in the next several weeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear a landmark antitrust case against the NCAA in the spring. The case could upend the business model for college sports by allowing colleges to compensate student athletes, Politico reports. The court will hear an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which affirmed a lower court decision that the NCAA’s limits on player compensation violate antitrust law. In asking for high court review, the NCAA accused lower courts of “judicial micromanagement” that would blur “the traditional line between college and professional athletes.”