Slate: The hidden agenda behind the attack on vaccine mandates
On Friday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a set of cases challenging President Joe Biden’s COVID vaccine mandates. Biden’s policies prompted a flurry of litigation across the country, with lower court judges reaching wildly divergent conclusions about their legality. Now the justices will determine—on an accelerated timeline—whether the administration can lawfully impose these new rules in the midst of the omicron wave. These cases also have sweeping implications for many other areas of federal regulatory law from housing to pollution, giving the Republican-appointed justices an opportunity to hobble Biden’s entire agenda.
New York Times: Taming the U.S. Supreme Court's emergency docket
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Friday in two pairs of challenges to Biden administration rules regarding Covid vaccinations, it will do something it hasn’t done since 1970. Usually, the court conducts formal sessions only for cases that have been appealed all the way through the lower courts (or for the rare disputes between states that begin and end in front of the Supreme Court).
On Friday, though, the justices are to hear arguments on four emergency applications on whether two administration rules relating to vaccine requirements should be blocked or allowed to go into effect before the normal appeals process.
JSonline: The lengthy effects of Wisconsin's felony disenfranchisement laws
Under the buzz of hair clippers, men sitting in Much Better barbershop didn’t ponder New Year’s Eve plans or talk shop on the Bucks or the Packers.
The usual banter found at this north side business centered on a weightier topic — taxation without representation for more than 63,000 Wisconsin residents who cannot vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws.
Politico: Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego criticizes Merrick Garland about Jan. 6 cases
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin