Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow @ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Despite not adding any new cases or hearing argument this week, the Court played a prominent role in the news. In an interview on 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday, President-Elect Trump declared he believes gay marriage rights are “settled.”  He indicated, however, that he would appoint pro-life justices to the Court who would reverse Roe v. Wade. As Joan Biskupic of CNN reports this is the first time since 1969 that a newly elected president will be able to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. President Nixon came into office with a vacancy left due to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s retirement. Before Congress even confirmed Nixon’s nominee for Chief Justice, Warren Burger, Associate Justice Abe Fortas resigned. Although the Senate confirmed Burger, it blocked President Nixon’s first two nominees to replace Fortas before confirming Justice Harry Blackmun.

The Hill reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein will become the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee next year. She will be the first women to be a ranking member of the committee, and will have a prominent role in vetting any Supreme Court Justice nomination after the President-Elect takes office. She has stated that she will pay “close attention,” to anyone Trump nominates, suggesting that she is willing to battle his or her confirmation.

Justice Sotomayor was also in the news this week. When asked about the outcome of the election, she stated that the country “can’t afford to despair.” She reiterated that the current even number of justices is not “ideal,” but that they have been doing the best that they can to avoid split decisions, and have affirmed by an equally divided court in only four cases since the death of Justice Scalia. However, as ABC News reports, she went on to say that the Court functions better with nine justices, as they are able to come to a definite conclusion on issues.

Also this week, Justice Ginsburg put down her gavel for a bit and made her opera debut with the Washington National Opera recently. She played “The Duchess” in “The Daughter of the Regiment” on opening night. As NBC reports, Justice Ginsburg and the late Justice Scalia both shared a passion for the opera. Justice Ginsburg “tweaked” the lines for the performance to make them reflect her “day job.”

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow @ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Commentary about the effect of the election on the Court has begun. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times discusses the possible repercussions on the Supreme Court, including a discussion of the 21 possible nominees that Trump’s campaign issued in September. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times also weighs in on the issue describing the Republican approach to nominations to the Court as “a new kind of hardball.”

The Court also heard argument in four cases this week. On Monday, the question before the Court in NLRB v. SW General was the scope of a provision that bars the president from nominating someone who is serving in an acting capacity to fill the job on a permanent basis unless the acting official also served as the first assistant to the vacant position for at least 90 days in the year before the job became vacant. The provision makes it more difficult for the president to evade the confirmation process for his appointees. The question here involves the scope of the provision. SW General, the respondent here, is arguing for broader scope, invalidating the appointment of the current acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Justice Anthony Kennedy told Shay Dvoretzky, who represents SW General, that that he had a “very strong” argument based on the text: the reference by the provision at issue to “a person” who serves in an acting capacity “under this section,” e to be acting appointeeswhich could be construed as applying the restriction on nominating someone who is serving in an acting role to all categories of individuals who are eligible, but overall the justices seemed divided. Lydia Wheeler of The Hill discusses other highlights from Monday’s arguments.

On Tuesday, the Court heard arguments in Bank of America v. Miami and Wells Fargo v. Miami, which are consolidated. The case presents the issue of whether Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just injury-in-fact when it limited lawsuits to “aggrieved person(s)”; and whether proximate cause requires more than the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through a chain of contingencies. Attorney Neal Katyal, representing the banks, told the justices Tuesday that a ruling for the cities would create an “unlimited theory of liability.” Not only could thousands of cities bring similar lawsuits, he said, but many other plaintiffs, including landlords, could also bring lawsuits. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog discusses the arguments further in her argument analysis. And ABC News notes that “some of the justices said they worried about opening the courthouse door to shop owners, gardeners and other companies that might lose business as a result of home foreclosures.”

Also on Tuesday, the Court heard Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. The issue in the case is whether a lawsuit has federal jurisdiction merely because the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, is a party. Early in the presentation of Joshua Rosenkranz on behalf Monique Lightfoot, the plaintiff suing Fannie Mae, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read a passage from the opinion in American National Red Cross v. S.G. & A.E. that, in her view, “seems to say if you authorize suit in federal court, that’s it. Specifically mentioning federal court suffices to confer federal jurisdiction.” SCOTUSblog breaks down the arguments on either side, here.

The Court heard its final arguments of the week on Wednesday in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. The court must decide whether Congress’s decision to impose differing gender-based physical-presence (in the United States) requirements on citizen parents of foreign-born children violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. More specifically, the challenged law grants citizenship to the child who is born abroad to an unmarried US citizen mother if the mother lived in the United States for one continuous year, while a child born abroad with an unmarried US citizen father receives citizenship only if the father lived in the United States for at least ten years — five of them after the age of 14. The Court previously considered this question but split 4-4 (with Justice Kagan recused) in Flores-Villar v. United States. Because even without Justice Kagan, there were four votes in favor of finding the differential treatment unconstitutional, it is likely that there will now be five votes for that position.

In this week’s argument, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, arguing on behalf of the United States, said that the different treatment of unmarried mothers and fathers served two interests: ensuring that U.S. citizens have sufficient ties to the United States and avoiding a scenario in which the children of U.S.-citizen mothers are born “stateless” – meaning, with no citizenship at all. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Kneedler why unmarried U.S.-citizen fathers would have less of a connection to the United States than unmarried mothers. And Justice Elena Kagan asked him why the government couldn’t achieve those goals using “entirely gender-neutral language” that would apply to both unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers. Scott Michelman of Slate.com explains how this case “provides a small but meaningful snapshot of how sex-based laws written in that very era [1950s] are viewed by the branch of government most likely to provide a check on the new president’s power.” As SCOTUSblog points out, the key precedents at issue here are from cases argued by Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself. The case also requires the Court to consider the appropriate remedy if it does find the statute unconstitutional.

Finally, in other Supreme Court news, on Monday, the Court denied certiorari in OXY USA Inc. v. Schell. This case analyzes whether the fact that a pending appeal “played no significant role” in an appellant’s voluntarily mooting a case, Alvarez v. Smith, is the only factor in determining whether to vacate a lower court’s judgment or whether a party must make an additional showing of compelling circumstances favoring vacatur.

This week, the Court heard five oral arguments. On Monday, the Court was presented with two cases: Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools and Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands. On Tuesday, the Court analyzed State Farm Fire & Casualty v. U.S. ex rel Rigsby and SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products. And on Wednesday, the Court listened to Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International. Of these cases, Star Athletica, and Venezuela are particularly interesting.

In Star Athletica, controversy erupted over cheerleader uniforms and whether copyright law protects the Varsity Brand’s uniform designs from being copied by Star Athletica.

Varsity Brands contends their uniform designs are protected from being replicated by Star Athletica because, though they are “useful articles” as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5), they qualify for copyright protection because they are “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” Star Athletica contends that the uniform designs pertain to the utility of the uniforms; when an object’s design pertains solely to its function, it is not typically eligible for copyright protection. Adam Liptak of the New York Times provides an analysis of Monday’s argument, noting Justice Sotomayor’s observation that this case could have an impact on “knock-off” merchandise. Mark Walsh at SCOTUSblog likened the oral arguments to an episode of “Project Runway” when he analyzed the justices’ lines of questioning about whether ertain design elements of the uniforms could be copyrighted.

In Venezuela, the Court questioned whether the current standard for determining if U.S. courts have jurisdiction over a lawsuit against a foreign government is sufficient, or if a more substantial standard should be applied. Though lawsuits against foreign governments typically cannot be brought in U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereignties Immunities Act, its “expropriation” exception means foreign governments can be sued if they illegally seize property with a commercial tie to the United States. In this case, Venezuela argued for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the exception does not apply and U.S. courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. Currently, the standard applied to determine if a suit filed against a foreign nation will survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is simply to determine if the suit is “frivolous” or “insubstantial.” Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog provides an analysis of Wednesday’s argument and describes the justices’ concern about how the outcome of this case might impact foreign relations into the future.

In other Court news, on October 28, the Court granted the petition for Gloucester County School Board v. G. G. This case discusses whether Gloucester School District committed a sex discrimination-based violation of Title IX when school officials refused to let Gavin Grimm, a transgender student, use the school restroom that corresponded to his gender identity. The issue at hand includes whether or not the Department of Education has correctly interpreted Title IX to extend to protect transgender students.

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate addresses how the future composition of the Court will have negative implications for abortion rights, specifically due to pledges from Senate Republicans to stonewall any nominees from a Democratic president. Recent comments from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) suggest heavy resistance in the Senate to any future nominee from a potential President Clinton, stating: “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.” The three oldest members of the Court, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy all voted in favor of abortion rights in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt last June, and Ginsburg and Breyer have voted to protect abortion rights;  Lithwick argues that future openings following their departure could dramatically shift how the Court votes on abortion rights because of  the Republican Senate refusal to confirm any nominees from a Democratic president.

Adam Feldman at Empirical SCOTUS provides a quantitative analysis of gender balance in the Supreme Court, finding that for the first time in Supreme Court history, more women spoke than men in oral arguments, finding that during arguments for Venezuela, six women spoke as opposed to four men.

Finally, Alice Miranda Ollstein from Think Progress discusses how a recent Court decision not to stay enforcement of some Ohio laws in a lawsuit from the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless could have an impact on the upcoming election. The suit sought to challenge an Ohio election law that allows the state to throw out any provisional ballot with minor errors or deviations from state record (i.e., if the voter signs his name “Bill” but the state record has him as “William”) By rejecting this request for emergency relief, the Court has allowed this policy to persist, meaning thousands of ballots could potentially be rejected in Ohio. CNN discusses this issue further, here.

To say on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow @ISCOTUS on Twitter!

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow @ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

This week, the Court did not hear any arguments, but the Justices are meeting to discuss cert petitions at Conference on October 28. SCOTUSblog reports on some notable petitions, including Packingham v. North Carolina, Purcell v. Arizona, and Sireci v. Florida, which have been repeatedly relisted for Conference.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently suggested that the Senate Republicans might block any nominee from a Democratic president indefinitely. Cruz, speaking at a campaign rally for U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn in Colorado, argued that there is a “historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices” and that “Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the Court to do its job.” Burgess Everett of Politico discusses these comments and Democratic responses. And as ISCOTUSnow noted earlier this week, the Court appears to be avoiding scheduling the most high profile cases up for consideration this term.

Mark Sherman from the Associated Press reports on a recent Clarence Thomas discussion at the Heritage Foundation. Thomas criticized the Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees as “broken in some ways” and described the erosion of our political civility: “”We have decided that rather than confront disagreements, we’ll just simply annihilate the person who disagrees with me. I don’t think that’s going to work in a republic, in a civil society.”

Also this week, Dahlia Lithwick of Slate discusses how the Supreme Court might have a diminished ability to intervene in future disputed presidential elections. She argues that increasing partisan polarity rising in the other two branches of government has delegitimized the role of the Court in deciding contested elections.

Finally, Mark Walsh of SCOTUSblog published an interview with lifelong Cubs fan, the retired Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens, 96, will be attending game four of the World Series on Saturday. The first time Stevens ever visited Wrigley Field was during the 1929 World Series, when the Cubs fell to the Philadelphia Athletics. Justice Stevens, forever the optimistic Cubs fan, concludes with a prediction: “Well, I thought they were going to win in four straight,” he said. “I guess I was wrong on that. I’m confident that they’ll pull it through. They have an awfully good team, and I think they’ll do it in the next four games.”