• A strong 9-4 showing: “Even in a ‘Slow’ Year, Cato Continues Its Winning Ways at the Supreme Court” [Ilya Shapiro]
• Court follows up Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections with another race-and-redistricting case, Cooper v. Harris [SCOTUSBlog symposium]
• “What Do We Mean By a “Pro-Business” Court — And Should We Care?” [James Copland, Case Western Law Review]
• Kennedy’s opinion for Court cites Cato amicus brief in Packingham v. North Carolina, ruling unconstitutionally overbroad law preventing nearly all social media access by released sex offenders [earlier]. Speech limits aren’t the only unconstitutional restrictions such offenders face. High court should take Karsjens case next [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald]
• CALPERS v. ANZ Securities Inc.: pendency of class action does not suspend three-year time limit for filing individual securities actions [Kevin LaCroix/D & O Diary, Federalist Society podcast with Mark Chenoweth]
• Why I’m not joining the fury over Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Pavan v. Smith, the case over Arkansas’s handling of birth certificates post-Obergefell [my Twitter sequence, more from Erica Goldberg]

Filed under: Cato Institute, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, tolling