U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been named the winner of the 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture, Above the Law reports. Ginsburg was chosen from a pool of more than 500 nominees. The $1 million award is given each year to thinkers whose ideas profoundly shape human ideals. “Throughout her career, Ginsburg has used the law to advance ethical and philosophical principles of equality and human rights as basic tenets” of this country said Berggruen Institute Founder and Chairman Nicolas Berggruen. Ginsburg will accept the award in December and plans to donate the funds to charitable or non-profit organizations.

The Supreme Court will take up a case this term that could significantly weaken the structure and independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government watchdog agency launched in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, News 4 reports from CNN. The law that established the CFPB says the president may not remove the director except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." But critics — including the Trump administration, current director Kathleen Kraninger, as well as a law firm fighting a CFPB-led investigation — argue in court briefs that a restriction on the president's authority to remove the director at will, including over policy disagreements, "violates the Constitution's separation of powers."

Americans have more confidence in the Supreme Court than they do in the other two branches of government, according to a new and wide-ranging national survey about the court by the Marquette University Law School. As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the survey finds that 57% of those polled say they trust the Supreme Court the most of the three branches, compared to 21% who chose the presidency and 22% who chose Congress. Respondents did not favor expanding the court, but do say they support establishing fixed terms instead of lifetime appointments.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that will determine whether states have the power to prosecute undocumented immigrants for identity theft, WATE reports. In Kansas v. Garcia, the state of Kansas is asking the justices to uphold its prosecution of three undocumented people for identity theft under state law. The case will test where to draw the line between state and federal enforcement.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear Domino’s Pizza Inc.’s appeal over whether its website and mobile app must comply with federal disabilities law, the ABA Journal reports. The company had argued that only physical facilities are covered by the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In refusing to hear the case, the court let stand a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed a blind man to sue the pizza chain to ensure its website and mobile app work with common screen-reading software. The ADA does not explicitly address the Internet or mobile apps, leaving courts around the country to determine how the law applies.

Tthe U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in a trio of civil-rights cases involving LGBT employees. The question is whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, also protects gay and transgender employees. The debate included a discussion of whether the court should rule in the case or call on Congress to clarify the statute, National Public Radio reports. Justice Neil Gorsuch also asked if the court should consider “the massive social upheaval” that could follow a ruling in favor of the workers. Attorneys for employers sued in the cases said Congress meant the protections to apply only on the basis of biological gender to protect women in the workplace. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, however, argued that the court has interpreted the law more broadly in the past, sometimes applying its provisions to cases Congress could not have imagined at the time it was passed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has several blockbuster cases in its new term—on gay and transgender rights, federal immigration enforcement, gun regulation and abortion. But before it gets to those, the court will take up two criminal law cases raising significant questions, even though only a handful of states are affected by each, the ABA Journal reports. Oral arguments started today in a case weighing whether states can abolish the insanity defense. The other case will consider whether the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts and whether that requirement is applicable to the states.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the Constitution Day lecture yesterday at Rhodes College in Memphis. According to the Daily Memphian, nearly 550 people were in attendance and the line to the auditorium snaked down the sidewalk an hour before the event. Speaking for 30 minutes, Breyer emphasized the changing nature of the justices’ work and spoke about his 2016 book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.” He then took questions submitted by students and staff for about an hour.

During a speaking engagement at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was taking questions when a student asked her whether the court is acting in a partisan manner under the administration’s conservative influence. Kagan said living in polarized times means that the court has to understand the world and try to find common ground and consensus. “[T]he responsible thing for a court to do in these times is to remember that it has to look like a court in order to maintain people’s sense of legitimacy in the institution, which is a critical, critical thing.” She closed by encouraging the students not to despair. Above the Law has more.

On Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court to will consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees federal protection from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, the New York Times reports. The case centers on a county employee in Georgia who claims he was fired after he joined a gay recreational softball league, though the employer says the termination was based on “conduct unbecoming of a…county employee.” In addition, the justices will hear a companion case brought by a skydiving instructor who says he was fired for being gay. His firing followed a complaint from a female customer who expressed concerns about being strapped to him during a tandem dive. The instructor died in a 2014 skydiving accident but the case is being pursued by his estate.