Daily Archives: March 26, 2020

The frenzy on K Street over the coronavirus stimulus bill is sparking a new backlash.

Watchdog groups have seized on the activity as major industries push for financial relief and other assistance from Washington. K Streets critics say the lobbying boom highlights the need for tougher controls on the influence industry and accuse businesses of using the coronavirus crisis to push through long-standing priorities they say go beyond immediate economic relief.

Those frustrations have also found expression in the $2.1 trillion House Democratic stimulus proposal, which includes a lobbying ban for companies that receive government aid until the funds are repaid. It would also ban corporations that receive a loan for coronavirus relief from giving bonuses to executives, buying back their own stock, and paying out dividends to shareholders.

The stimulus deal being worked out in the Senate is likely to include restrictions on corporate compensation and stock buybacks but not a lobbying ban. But lobbying watchdogs say the House language highlights their growing concerns with K Street, which is one of the few industries enjoying a boom amid the crisis.

The COVID crisis is shaking up Washington, and since more stimulus packages are likely to be on the table, we expect K Street to continue to ratchet up their attention and spending, Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, told The Hill. With that backdrop, putting limits on the corporations that receive taxpayer dollars in bailouts is just common sense.

Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, supports language that would require companies that receive government help to forego lobbying.

Corporations that receive our taxpayer dollars to stay afloat need clear checks on their ability to engage in influence peddling, Gilbert said.

The coronavirus outbreak has sparked a scramble in Washington as major industries and companies are pressing for aid to weather the economic downturn.

The airline industry last week initially requested $50 billion in aid, while Boeing requested $60 billion for itself and aerospace suppliers. The aggressive lobbying has included a wide range of groups: Child care companies, the candy industry, alcohol beverage producers, tourism and travel companies, and manufacturers are just some of the businesses that have sought relief from Washington.

Thats alarmed progressive and consumer groups who worry the stimulus package will be a boon to big business.

We cannot allow corruption at the highest levels of our government to infect our response to this virus, said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a nonpartisan watchdog. Washington has a choice stand with Americans who are already sick and those living in fear, or stand with the powerful special interests that have filled their campaign coffers and are now looking to cash in.

The House language on a lobbying ban is only the latest effort from Democratic lawmakers to rein in K Street.

Democrats have ramped up calls for lobbying bans, and presidential candidate Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Airbnb - Senators clinch deal on T stimulus package Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash Sanders plans to participate in April DNC debate MORE (I-Vt.) has included similar provisions in his platform, calling for a ban on corporate funding for conventions as well as a lobbying ban on former members of Congress and senior staffers.

But those efforts and the latest Democratic proposal to ban lobbying by businesses that receive federal help has rankled K Street lobbyists and those from business groups.

This proposal smacks of a lack of seriousness. The lobbying thats going on right now are folks helping lawmakers understand whats actually happening out beyond the beltway, in the real world, with thousands of employers and small businesses, Neil Bradley, Chamber executive vice president and chief policy officer, told The Hill. Blocking that information from lawmakers, all thats going to do is make this crisis even worse.

The Chamber has been one of the most active groups pushing for protections for businesses and calling on President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe pandemic is bad, we need the capability to measure just how bad Florida governor wants federal disaster area declaration Amash calls stimulus package 'a raw deal' for 'those who need the most help' MORE to designate essential businesses and services during the crisis.

The scrutiny on K Street during a crisis is also not new. Similar proposals on lobbying were floated during the 2008 financial crisis: Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinLobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash House bill would ban stock trading by members of Congress Loeffler under fire for stock trades amid coronavirus outbreak MORE (D-Calif.) proposed that any financial institution that receives help from the Treasury Department be banned from lobbying with that money, The Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

But K Street groups are pushing back hard.

It seems both unconstitutional and shortsighted to remove the First Amendment right to petition the government from the very companies who need to be working with the government right now. Its unclear how this idea helps workers, their families, the economy, or anyone, really, said Stephen Worley, the International Franchise Association (IFA) senior director of communications. The IFA is asking Washington for a $300 billion fund to provide liquidity to business owners.

I think a lobbying ban is a bad idea. The First Amendment is the first amendment for a reason and limiting the ability to petition the government is a slippery slope that needs to be avoided, lobbyist headhunter Ivan Adler told The Hill.

Public Affairs Council, a nonpartisan association for public affairs professionals, also said such a ban would violate the constitution.

The courts would likely throw out this proposal because it would clearly violate the First Amendment right to petition the government, Doug Pinkham, the associations president, said. Companies lobby for things like protecting domestic jobs, increasing critical health care research and many other policies that help our countrys economy move forward.

Corporations often assist our lawmakers in crafting sound public policy, and taking away a companys ability to do so during this complicated time is incredibly shortsighted, he added.

But as the coronavirus outbreak plays out and as the government and businesses look to save the economy, the scrutiny on K Street is unlikely to lift.

Bradley, from the Chamber, called the Democratic response disappointing.

Its disappointing because all across America, small businesses are wondering when Washington will get this phase three bill done because they are literally counting the days until they wont be able to make payroll for their employees, he said.

Watchdog groups hope that the stimulus debate will help move the needle on lobbying reform.

Anything that represents long-term corporate reform, not just short-term conditions, is great, said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Go here to see the original:
Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill - The Hill

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that some of the claims in a literary advocacy group's lawsuit against President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe pandemic is bad, we need the capability to measure just how bad Florida governor wants federal disaster area declaration Amash calls stimulus package 'a raw deal' for 'those who need the most help' MORE overhis threats to retaliate against critical media coverage can proceed.

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield wrote in a 24-pageopinionthat PEN America had a "constitutional standing" to pursue claims for declaratory relief against Trump's practice of "selectively barring access" to the White House press corps, including by "revoking or threatening to revoke press credentials due to hostility to the reporters speech."

Schofield also ruled that the case could proceed on allegations that Trump revoked or threatened to revoke security clearances for government officials he dislikes.

The court granted Trump's motion to dismiss claims thathe initiated government actions against certain media companies, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses and interfered in White House press access.

Schofield noted that PEN America's claims against Trump had merit, given that the White House has a history of barring press access and that it revoked CNN White House correspondent Jim AcostaJames (Jim) AcostaSean Spicer takes seat at White House press briefing CNN's Acosta: Trump referring to coronavirus as 'foreign virus' in Oval Office address 'smacked of xenophobia' Chris Wallace 'horrified' by CNN's Acosta's conduct: 'It's not our job to one-up presidents' MORE'scredentials inNovember 2018. Acosta's press pass was later reinstated, though the development caused former White House press secretary Sarah HuckabeeSarah Elizabeth SandersFox News's Hume rips Alexander over 'gotcha' question to Trump NBC's Alexander: I gave Trump 'a softball' question as opportunity to 'reassure' Americans Coronavirus puts new use to White House press briefing room MORE Sanders to release new guidelines for reporters.

The press secretary indeed e-mailed the entire press corps to inform them of new rules of conduct and to warn of further consequences, citing the incident involving Mr. Acosta, Schofield noted. These facts plausibly allege that a motivation for defendants actions is controlling and punishing speech he dislikes.

Acosta's credentials were temporarily stripped after a contentious exchangewith the president at a press conference. A federal judgegranted CNN's request to restore the pass, ruling that Acosta and his employer were likely to succeed in arguments that theirFifth Amendment rights to due process were violated by the White House.

PEN America filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Trump in an attempt to gain an order declaring that Trump's threats violated the First Amendment. The group also sought an injunction to block Trump fromtaking actions against journalists he doesn't like.

Schofield wrote on Tuesday that "issuing an injunction to the president would impede his discretionary authority in these realms, and more generally, risk improper judicial encroachment on the executive branch."

The case will now move into the discovery phase, and PEN America will be allowed to obtain documents from the government to help substantiate its claims, the group said.

PEN America is profoundly grateful for the courts timely decision," the group's president, Jennifer Egan, said in a statement. "Though we filed our lawsuit more than a year ago, the Trump administrations punitive stance toward the press has continued unabated, with corrosive results for truth, fact, our democracy, andmost recentlypublic health."

View post:
Judge rules lawsuit alleging Trump threatened free press can move forward | TheHill - The Hill

President Trump is a ratings hit, and some journalists and public health experts say that could be a dangerous thing.

Since reviving the daily White House briefing a practice abandoned last year by an administration that bristles at outside scrutiny Mr. Trump and his coronavirus updates have attracted an average audience of 8.5 million on cable news, roughly the viewership of the season finale of TheBachelor.

And the numbers are continuing to rise, driven by intense concern about the virus and the housebound status of millions of Americans who are practicing social distancing. On Monday, nearly 12.2 million people watched Mr. Trumps briefing on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, according to Nielsen Monday Night Football numbers.

Millions more are watching on ABC, CBS, NBC and online streaming sites. (Because of the way Nielsen ratings are measured, reliable numbers are available only for cable news.) And the audience is expanding even as Mr. Trump has repeatedly delivered information that doctors and public health officials have called ill informed, misleading or downright wrong.

The president has suggested that the coronavirus is comparable to influenza, which is far less lethal, and has invoked the death toll of car accidents. He has also encouraged the use of medications that have yet to be proved effective against the virus; on Monday, a man in Arizona died after he and his wife consumed a form of chloroquine, a drug that Mr. Trump has promoted on the air.

How to report on Mr. Trumps fabrications has long been a source of concern among journalists and press critics, dating to the blanket cable news coverage of his rallies in the 2016 presidential campaign. Even after Mr. Trump took office, journalists have debated the civic benefits of broadcasting the presidents remarks to the nation with the need to supplement his statements with corrections and context.

The emergence of the pandemic has raised the stakes for what had existed mostly as an insular discussion among media ethicists. Now, the presidents critics say, lives are at risk.

I would stop putting those briefings on live TV not out of spite, but because its misinformation, the MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared to her viewers last week.

The veteran anchor Ted Koppel said on Wednesday that television news executives had forgotten a crucial distinction of their profession.

Training a camera on a live event, and just letting it play out, is technology, not journalism; journalism requires editing and context, Mr. Koppel wrote in an email. I recognize that presidential utterances occupy a unique category. Within that category, however, President Trump has created a special compartment all his own.

The question, clearly, is whether his status as president of the United States obliges us to broadcast his every briefing live, Mr. Koppel continued. No. No more so than you at The Times should be obliged to provide your readers with a daily, verbatim account.

Network producers and correspondents say there is often some internal debate about whether to carry the presidents appearances live and unfiltered. But given the intensity of the national crisis, many executives have concluded there is no justification for preventing Americans from hearing directly from the president and his health care administrators.

And a significant portion of the country is looking to Mr. Trump for its facts. A CBS News poll on Tuesday said that 90 percent of Republicans trusted Mr. Trump for accurate information about the pandemic; 14 percent of Democrats said the same.

Fox News has been a particularly popular venue for those who want to hear from the president. The network regularly accounts for roughly half the overall cable news audience for Mr. Trumps briefings.

On Monday, Fox News alone attracted 6.2 million viewers for the presidents briefing an astounding number for a 6 p.m. cable broadcast, more akin to the viewership for a popular prime-time sitcom. This past weekend, Fox News recorded its highest weekend viewership since its 2003 coverage of the gulf war.

Americans trust in the news media is also split along partisan lines. The CBS News poll said 13 percent of Republicans trusted the news media for information about the virus, versus 72 percent of Democrats.

Mr. Trumps hostility toward the independent press has done much to deepen that divide, and he has not hesitated to use the pandemic briefings an ostensibly nonpartisan venue to amplify his attacks.

Last week, the president denounced journalists as angry, angry people and berated the NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander as a terrible reporter, after Mr. Alexander asked the president to provide a message for concerned Americans. The Trump campaign later raised funds with an email highlighting Mr. Trumps insult.

One of Mr. Alexanders colleagues at NBC News had died from the coronavirus a day earlier.

Mr. Trump has also used national TV appearances to spread incendiary and unproven accusations. At a Fox News town hall on Tuesday, he read aloud a critical headline about Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York that had been published by a fringe right-wing conspiracy theory site, The Gateway Pundit.

Mr. Trumps attacks on journalists have prompted outrage from First Amendment groups. The chief executive of PEN America, Suzanne Nossel, called Mr. Trumps remarks at the briefings an appalling daily spectacle and an international embarrassment.

The White House, in turn, has been critical of TV networks that do not do its bidding. On Monday, after CNN and MSNBC cut away from the final portion of Mr. Trumps briefing, a White House spokesman, Judd Deere, called the move pretty disgraceful.

CNN responded that the network will make our own editorial decisions. MSNBC said it had cut away only because the information no longer appeared to be valuable to the important ongoing discussion around public health.

John Koblin contributed reporting.

Read more from the original source:
Trumps Coronavirus Briefings Are a Ratings Hit. Should Networks Cover Them? - The New York Times

John Elwood briefly reviews Mondays relists.

Wow. Its been a long week. As if the coronavirus werent enough all on its own, theres fresh news of other disasters. By which I mean parents everywhere realizing their wish they could spend more time with their families might actually be coming true.

My forecast last week that well be seeing opinions in some of th[e relisted cases] soon turned out to be correct. The Supreme Court summarily reversed in Davis v. United States, 19-5421, invalidating the unique rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. It took the court just two paragraphs of analysis to dispatch it. The court then GVRd (granted, vacated and remanded) in two cases raising the same issue, Bazan v. United States, 19-6113, and Bazan v. United States, 19-6431. You arent having some quarantine-induced mental breakdown: Both cases involve the same defendant. Finally, the court denied review in Avery v. United States, 19-633, involving a similarly atextual rule. Section 2244(b)(1) of Title 28 creates a rule covering applications by state prisoners for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Yet six courts of appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed not just by state prisoners under Section 2254, but also by federal prisoners under Section 2255, which the statute does not mention. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion respecting denial to emphasize that the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Governments favor, and essentially warned the Justice Department to start confessing error now, writing [i]n a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.

There are three new relists this week, but the first two grow out of a single incident. There are a lot of moving parts in Brownback v. King, 19-546, and King v. Brownback, 19-718, so pay as much attention as your squalling children and blaring smoke detector permit. Douglas Brownback was an FBI special agent; Todd Allen was a detective with the Grand Rapids, Michigan, police department. Both worked for an FBI-directed fugitive task force. James King, who is of broadly the same height (within a five-inch range), build (thin) and age (within five years) as a known fugitive, had the misfortune to buy a soda from a particular gas station during the same two-hour period when the fugitive usually did so. Brownback and Allen, wearing plain clothes but with badges on lanyards, stopped King and had him put his hands on his head. They removed a pocketknife from his pocket, but when they also removed his wallet, King asked, Are you mugging me? and began running. What apparently followed was some tackling (of King), some biting (by King), and a whole lot of punching (by a bitten Allen). Michigan charged King with assault with intent to do great bodily harm, aggravated assault of a police officer and resisting arrest, but a jury acquitted him.

King then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing claimants to sue the federal government for negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s] if a private person would have been liable under those circumstances under state law. King also sued the federal government for constitutional violations on individual-capacity claims against the agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court entered judgment for the federal government on the FTCA claims because the actions were taken within the scope of the agents authority in good faith, denied the Section 1983 claims on the ground that the statute applies only to state officials and the FBI was running the show here (even for the state agents), and denied the Bivens claim on the merits on the ground that the police had not violated Kings constitutional rights.

King did not appeal his FTCA claims only his Bivens and Section 1983 claims against the individual officers. The officers argued (through their government lawyers) that the claims were barred by the acts judgment bar, which provides that the judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim. A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that because King had not adequately pleaded all the elements of an FTCA claim in district court, that court never had jurisdiction over the claim, and, as a non-merits disposition, the district courts decision did not trigger the judgment bar. The majority then concluded that the claim was properly brought under Bivens and not Section 1983 because the conduct was fairly attributable to the FBI and not the state of Michigan. The court also determined that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under Bivens. Judge John Rogers (who apparently ties judge Jeffrey Sutton as the 6th Circuits most prolific judge) dissented on the grounds that the Bivens claims were precluded by the FTCAs judgment bar.

Are you still here? I guess people really are hard-up for entertainment during the quarantine. In any event, the federal government sought review, and King filed a conditional cross-petition. The government argues that the final judgment in favor of the United States under the FTCA should bar the Bivens claims. King argues that Allens membership in a joint state-federal task force does not preclude him from acting under color of state law for purposes of being liable under Section1983.

The third relist requires way less wind-up. Priscilla Daydee Valdez put an acquaintance in Mexico in touch with someone she knew in Tucson, Arizona, to buy ammunition. Valdez transferred money between the two and then traveled to the store, where her Tucson acquaintance bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition in a transaction Im confident the clerk thought was completely above-board. They then drove to a spot near the Mexican border and left the car for a time, returning to an empty car after receiving a call that the car was ready. Valdez pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to export ammunition, which included a forfeiture count. Although the relevant firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. 924, provides only for forfeiture of ammunition used in a federal offense, other statutes, namely 21 U.S.C. 853(a) and 2461(c), provide for the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant if, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, the forfeitable property is unavailable. The district court ordered Valdez, who is indigent, to forfeit money of her own because the forfeitable ammunition had disappeared, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.

Valdez seeks review, arguing that the government can require her to forfeit substitute property only if the original forfeitable property was also hers, and the ammunition here was not. If we have learned anything from the relists and opinions in Davis and Avery, and for that matter the relist in Brownback, its that the justices take the wording of provisions seriously. Theyre undoubtedly taking a very close look at the forfeiture statutes here.

Thats all this week. Everyone enjoy your family time!

New Relists

Brownback v. King, 19-546

Issue: Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought underSection 1346(b)(1)of the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcoticsthat is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimants FTCA claim.

(relisted after the March 20 conference)

King v. Brownback, 19-718

Issue: Whether a law enforcement officers membership in a joint state-federal police task force managed, in part, by a federal agency precludes him or her from acting under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

(relisted after the March 20 conference)

Valdez v. United States, 19-6062

Issues: (1) Whether a defendant may be required to forfeit substitute property in lieu of the firearms and ammunition subject to forfeiture under18 U.S.C. 924(d); and (2) whether, if the substitute-asset provision of21 U.S.C. 853(p)is applied to a forfeiture imposed under any statute via28 U.S.C. 2461, the limitations of 21 U.S.C. 853(a)which are explicitly incorporated by Section 853(p)must be applied as well; in other words, whether, if substitute-asset forfeiture is imposed via 28 U.S.C. 2461(c), it is limited to situations in which a defendant transfers or conceals her own property.

(relisted after the March 20 conference)

Returning Relists

Andrus v. Texas, 18-9674

Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced inStrickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated no prejudice analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsels ineffective representation.

(rescheduled before the November 1, 2019, and November 8, 2019, conferences; relisted after the November 15, 2019, November 22, 2019, December 6, 2019, December 13, 2019, January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21, February 28, March 6 and March 20 conferences)

Cannon v. Seay, 19-311

Issues: (1) Whether, in review of a state decision under28 U.S.C. 2241, when a federal appellate court must determine if double-jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial is granted over a defendants objection based upon the absence of a critical prosecution witness, the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains in equal or greater measure the deference universally accorded a trial courts fact-finding; and (2) whether, in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court inArizona v. Washingtonand accord deference to the state courts ruling finding manifest necessity for mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference to consideration of alternatives in the courts oral ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient, even though the record shows the state court did not act rashly in granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach that included suspending the trial to allow a search for the missing witness prior to considering and granting the states mistrial motion.

(relisted after the January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21, February 28, March 6 and March 20 conferences)

The Rams Football Company, LLC v. St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, 19-672

Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to refuse to enforce the terms of an arbitration agreement assigning questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator if those terms would be enforceable under ordinary state-law contract principles in a non-arbitration context.

(relisted after the January 24 January 24, February 21, February 28, March 6 and March 20 conferences)

VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 19-446

Issues: (1) Whether Title VII authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to continue investigating a charge of discrimination after the commission issues the charging party a right-to-sue notice and after the charging party pursues private litigation; and (2) whether the EEOC can rely on a charge of discrimination to demand information from an employer about acts or practices not affecting the charging party.

(relisted after the February 21, February 28, March 6 and March 20 conferences)

Halprin v. Davis, 19-6156

Issue: Whether Randy Halprins second federal petition raising a judicial bias claim is second or successive under28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)if the judge concealed his bias by failing to recuse himself, and the public exposure of his bigotry after the conclusion of Halprins initial habeas proceedings in the district court created Halprins first fair opportunity to present his claim.

(relisted after the February 21, February 28, March 6 and March 20 conferences)

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 18-1455

Issues: (1) Whether the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authoritys policy of refusing to accept advertisements that promote or oppose religion or reflect a religious perspective violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether that discrimination against religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

(relisted after the March 6 and March 20 conferences)

United States v. California, 19-532

Issue: Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement officials from providing federal immigration authorities with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or barred by intergovernmental immunity.

(relisted after the March 6 and March 20 conferences)

Posted in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, U.S. v. California, Brownback v. King, Andrus v. Texas, King v. Brownback, Cannon v. Seay, The Rams Football Company, LLC v. St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Halprin v. Davis, Valdez v. U.S., Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: John Elwood, Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 25, 2020, 1:41 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/relist-watch-100-years-of-solitude/

See the original post:
Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude - SCOTUSblog