The morning read for Thursday, September 11

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• 3 Pillars of Trump’s Power Are Tested, as Pivotal Cases Head to Supreme Court (Brian Bennett, Time) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide the fate of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, fast-tracking two cases on the scope of the president’s emergency economic powers. Questions about presidential power are also at the center of cases on the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles and the Trump administration’s push to speed up deportation procedures, both of which could be before the Supreme Court in the near future, according to Time. In cases related to all three issues, “[l]ower courts are repeatedly finding that Trump has exceeded his powers as President under the Constitution,” Time reported.
• Trump Asks Appeals Court to Let Him Oust Fed’s Lisa Cook (Erik Larson and Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg) — It’s also likely that the justices soon will be asked to determine whether Trump can remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from her post over allegations of mortgage fraud. On Tuesday, a federal district court put an order in place that blocks Cook’s firing, but on Wednesday the Trump administration “filed a notice that it’s asking the federal appeals court in Washington to overturn the ruling,” according to Bloomberg. It’s unclear how quickly the appeals court will take action in the case, and it remains possible that Trump will ask the Supreme Court to intervene in a matter of days. “At stake is the makeup of the Fed board during a highly anticipated Sept. 16-17 meeting to vote on whether to lower interest rates. Cook can attend the meeting as long as (the district court’s) ruling remains in place,” Bloomberg reported.
• Justice Sotomayor on Legality of Trump Seeking Third Term — ‘Not Settled’ (Andrew Stanton, Newsweek) — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett have been asked about term limits for presidents recently as they’ve toured to promote their new books. Specifically, they’ve been asked whether the 22nd Amendment would prevent Trump from seeking a third term. In her response, Barrett pointed to the text of the amendment, while Sotomayor said that the interpretation of the 22nd Amendment isn’t settled law. “No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don’t know, so it’s not settled because we don’t have a court case about this issue,” Sotomayor said, according to Newsweek. “But it is in the Constitution, and one should understand that there’s nothing that is greater law in the United States than the Constitution.” Neither justice’s answer was particularly direct, but that may have been because they don’t want to “prejudge” an issue that may one day be before the court, Newsweek reported.
• Alex Jones asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal of $1.4 billion Sandy Hook judgment (Dave Collins, Associated Press) — Conservative radio show host Alex Jones has asked the Supreme Court to review a $1.4 billion judgment against him in a case stemming from comments he made about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. “The Infowars host is arguing that the judge was wrong to find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without holding a trial on the merits of allegations lodged by relatives of victims of the shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut,” according to the Associated Press. Among other claims put forward in the cert petition, Jones contends that his comments “about the school shooting being a hoax” were protected by the First Amendment and that “the $1.4 billion judgment is excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment.”
• US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions (Nate Raymond, Reuters) — In April, the Supreme Court declined to review a New York gun law that prohibits bringing firearms into “sensitive places,” like government buildings, hospitals, and schools. But the justices could soon have another opportunity to decide whether such “sensitive places” laws violate the Second Amendment after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held Wednesday that New Jersey could restrict carrying guns in “parks, hospitals, libraries, museums, beaches, zoos and casinos,” according to Reuters. “As we look through our history, a pattern emerges: our Nation has permitted restriction of firearms in discrete locations set aside for particular civic functions and where the presence of firearms was historically regulated as jeopardizing the peace or posing a physical danger to others,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause in Wednesday’s opinion.