Welcome to Supreme Court Brief. The justices still have a host of opinions to publish—perhaps one or more will come tomorrow—and we're closing in on the end of June, the traditional closure of the term. Will we go into July? Plus: we catch up with the Appellate Project, launched late last year to develop ways to interest minority law students in appellate work at an early stage. Scroll down for our headline roundup to catch up on all the big things

Thanks for reading, and your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Contact Marcia Coyle at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MarciaCoyle. And contact SCB contributor Tony Mauro at [email protected] and on Twitter at @Tonymauro.

An Ending in July?

With 14 cases still to be decided, the Supreme Court term appears likely to stretch into July. Decisions that are issued in July are not unprecedented, but a quick check reveals the Roberts court hasn't issued any opinions that month in argued cases.

Most of the post-June decisions came in terms where the justices were dealing with twice as many cases as they have in recent years or a docket full of potential blockbusters.

The 1988-89 term under Chief Justice William Rehnquist featured a number of July rulings, including the Missouri abortion case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services—the ruling was issued on July 3. The opinion in the Pennsylvania courthouse crèche case County of Allegheny v. ACLU came out on July 2. That busy term included cases involving flag burning, a juvenile death penalty and sex stereotyping.

Also notable for Scotus trivia fans: July 31, 1942: Ex parte Quirin on military court trials of enemy agents; August 8, 1798: Calder v. Bull on no ex post facto violations in civil cases, and July 1, 1996: U.S. v. Winstar on the government's breach of contract with thrifts during the savings and loan crisis.

Back to the present, here are some thoughts about the remaining cases of the term.

>> The oldest argued—and undecided—case of the term is now Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, a religion clause challenge involving funds for religious schools. The case was argued Jan. 22 by Richard Komer of the Institute for Justice, counsel to Espinoza, and Jenner & Block partner Adam Unikowsky, representing Montana. Although quite unreliable as a predictor of who will write the opinion, only two justices have no opinion from the January session: Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer.

>> The February argument docket still has three undecided cases, two of which are being closely watched: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a constitutional challenge to the bureau's single director structure, and June Medical Services v. Russo, a challenge to Louisiana's restrictions on abortion physicians. Less high profile, but important to immigration law is Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam involving the expedited removal procedure.

Three justices have not written opinions in this sitting: Roberts, Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. Court watchers have been making predictions. Breyer wrote the majority opinion striking down Texas's abortion restrictions, which were the model for Louisiana's regulations so he might lead the court if the Louisiana case goes the way of Texas. If Louisiana wins, Alito or Roberts could be the author. Roberts has a special interest in the Constitution's structure and separation of powers so he could be the author of Seila Law, but Breyer has written in this area as well. Or, it could be none of the three.

Waiting for these decisions are: the ACLU's Lee Gelernt, who argued on behalf of Thuraissigiam against Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler. In Seila Law, Kannon Shanmugam, partner in Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, represented the law firm; U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued against the Bureau. Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement was court-appointed amicus defending the lower court decision and U.S. House general counsel Douglas Letter argued as amicus supporting the lower court.

In the June Medical case, Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, counsel to the clinic, argued against Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill and U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall.

All 10 of the May argued cases await decisions. —Marcia Coyle

Lack of Diversity Among Lawyers: Not Just a SCOTUS Problem

After another Supreme Court term in which zero African-American lawyers argued before the justices, it's fitting that The Appellate Project has arrived on the scene with the goal of increasing diversity in the mainly white and male appellate bar.

Launched last November, the project is developing ways to interest minority law students in appellate work at an early stage. Its programs will work toward that goal through educational outreach, partnering with Howard University Law School to add appellate work to its civil rights clinic, and an "incubator" summer fellowship program to connect students to appellate practitioners and judges for mentoring.

The project is the brainchild of Juvaria Khan, a civil rights lawyer who decided to act after a decade of litigation in different settings, most recently working for Muslim Advocates. "At each stage, I was struck by the lack of diversity" especially among appellate lawyers, she said. "It was very troubling to me."

With the financial help of family and friends last November, Khan left her job and built the project online, consulting with lawyers and judges on how to remedy the problem. She got enthusiastic responses and decided to attack the problem at the law-student stage. Khan is now talking to law firms about help to grow the project.

Her scope is wider than helping minority students to become Supreme Court practitioners, but for her board of directors she recruited, among others, high court advocates including former U.S. solicitor general Donald Verrilli Jr., now partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson; Sarah Harrington, partner at Goldstein & Russell; and Roy Englert Jr., partner at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber.

>> "My friend Juvaria Khan has a well-thought-through, concrete plan for improving diversity in the appellate bar by starting very early in prospective lawyers' studies and making them aware of opportunities and challenges alike," Englert said. "Whatever the sources of the problem of underrepresentation, I do believe that a problem exists."

>> "I became involved in The Appellate Project because I believe that the highest courts in our country should hear from a diverse range of voices," Harrington said. "The Appellate Project hopes to increase diversity in the appellate bar by addressing some systemic barriers that lawyers of color face in entering the small and relatively insular appellate bar."

Check back at the NLJ today for a more detailed report about the project. —Tony Mauro

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

Noel Francisco's Exit Trims Scant High Court Minority Presence. "Solicitor General Noel Francisco plans to step down when the Supreme Court term ends this summer, meaning one of the nation's highest profile non-White lawyers will no longer argue the government's cases before the country's most important court." [Bloomberg Law]

Have Progressives Finally Learned How to Speak the Language of Supreme Court Conservatives? "The lesson is not that progressives should now tout 'textualism' or any other ism. They should, however, focus on Gorsuch's straightforward argument—how he chose to push back against fierce opposition from dissenters who claimed the true mantle of the textualism faith." [Slate]

G.O.P. Faces Risk From Push to Repeal Health Law During Pandemic. "Republicans are increasingly worried that their decade-long push to repeal the Affordable Care Act will hurt them in the November elections, as coronavirus cases spike around the country and millions of Americans who have lost jobs during the pandemic lose their health coverage as well. The issue will come into sharp focus this week, when the White House is expected to file legal briefs asking the Supreme Court to put an end to the program, popularly known as Obamacare." [NYT]

What Happened After Nixon Failed to Appoint a Woman to the Supreme Court. "That Pat Nixon was angry has been reported—most notably in Julie Nixon Eisenhower's revealing biography of her mother. But until this year, when the Nixon presidential library released a fresh batch of previously expurgated conversations captured by the White House taping system, we've not been able to listen in on, or know the extent of this discord in the Nixon household." [Politico]

Trump Has No Patience for Legal Intricacies. The Supreme Court Is All About Them. "What was unmistakable was that the president who has no patience for legal niceties has run into a Supreme Court that is all about them. For the second straight year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has shown who gets the last word on that subject." [The Washington Post]

Supreme Court Gives Trump a Win on His Steel Tariffs. "The decision could embolden Trump to take further tariff actions without worrying that the Supreme Court will strike them down. It puts the onus on Congress to decide whether its wants to rein in Trump's tariff powers. So far, neither the Republican-led Senate nor the Democratic-led House has shown much interest in that." [Politico]

Supreme Court will decide (again!) if courts or arbitrators determine arbitrability. "If you thought there couldn't possibly be a gateway arbitrability issue that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't yet resolved, think again. On Monday, the justices granted review to the medical and dental equipment distributor Henry Schein, which contends that arbitrators—and not judges—should get to decide whether disputes fall into carveouts from broad arbitration contracts." [Reuters]

Environmentalists Relieved as Critics Slam 'Muddled' SCOTUS Term. "The U.S. Supreme Court's latest term, wrapping up this month, went surprisingly well for environmental lawyers who feared cases on the docket could prove disastrous to their cause." [Bloomberg Law]