With the entry-ban cases off the calendar, today the justices will hear only one oral argument, in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, in which they will consider whether appellate time limits are jurisdictional. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog. Ryan Powers and Larry Blocho preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, and another preview comes from the George Washington Law Review. Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the case.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Eric McGhee, the co-creator of an analytical measure of partisan advantage in redistricting relied on by the challengers in Gill v. Whitford, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether Wisconsin’s electoral maps are the product of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, “correct[s] a couple misconceptions” arising out of last Tuesday’s oral argument. Additional commentary on the argument comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, arguing that “[j]udges cannot shirk hard issues because they are hard.”

At ImmigrationProf Blog, Nancy Morawetz suggests that the oral argument in one of last week’s immigration cases, Sessions v. Dimaya, “in which the Court saw just how complicated immigration law is and how protracted proceedings can be for a person who raises serious challenges to deportation,” should have helped clarify the issues in the other, Jennings v. Rodriguez, a challenge to the prolonged detention of noncitizens without bond hearings. Another look at the argument in Dimaya comes from Ziran Zhang at Burnham & Gorokhov’s eponymous blog.

At The World and Everything in It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Whitford and Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the court will decide whether labor laws forbid class waivers in employment contracts. A Daily Journal podcast unpacks several of last week’s oral arguments, focusing on Whitford and Rodriguez. In an op-ed in The Hill, David Noll weighs in on one of the companion cases to Epic Systems, maintaining that “the type of agency regulation in Murphy Oil is crucial to ensuring that arbitration does not undermine federal statutes that are enforced through private litigation.”

At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that tomorrow’s argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which asks whether corporations are liable under the Alien Tort Statute, “will have wide-ranging implications for counter-terrorism efforts and international human rights law.” In an op-ed in The Washington Times, Norman Lamont weighs in on the case, arguing that “[a]ttacking an ally by letting the U.S. courts be used to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from its principal financial institution would be a foreign policy blunder of the first order.”

In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on McCoy v. Louisiana, a case the court recently agreed to review that asks whether “it violate[s] the Constitution for a defense counsel to concede a client’s guilt over the accused’s express objection.” Another look at the case comes from Adam Liptak in The New York Times, who observes that “[c]onceding guilt in a capital case,” which has both a guilt phase and a punishment phase, “is sometimes the right play.”

Briefly:

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 10, 2017, 7:07 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/tuesday-round-up-398/