Skip to navigationSkip to content
Ephrat Livni

Ephrat Livni

Senior Reporter at Quartz
  • Today's SCOTUS hearing about a license for a pipeline under the Appalachian Trail showed there's no agreeing on what constitutes common sense. The justices were all stunned by one thing or another. But they didn't seem to agree on whether the government has a right to grant the license environmentalists

    Today's SCOTUS hearing about a license for a pipeline under the Appalachian Trail showed there's no agreeing on what constitutes common sense. The justices were all stunned by one thing or another. But they didn't seem to agree on whether the government has a right to grant the license environmentalists have been fighting.

    Personally, I was pleased to see Elena Kagan call out the wacky briefs I highlighted in a story last week. What the court's majority will decide remains a mystery though.

  • The "shadow docket" is not much discussed but a disturbing pattern has emerged under the Trump administration. The government continually goes straight to the Supreme Court for emergency relief in an extraordinary number of cases. No other administration has done this and justice Sonia Sotomayor called

    The "shadow docket" is not much discussed but a disturbing pattern has emerged under the Trump administration. The government continually goes straight to the Supreme Court for emergency relief in an extraordinary number of cases. No other administration has done this and justice Sonia Sotomayor called out her colleagues for being its supreme enforcers in a damning dissent yesterday.

  • Bloomberg is a smart guy but he's never been a law professor and he just doesn't have Warren's knack for showing the law in action. The jurist showed the businessman just how transparency is done using a clever tool that made a damning point about the billionaire presidential candidate and served as

    Bloomberg is a smart guy but he's never been a law professor and he just doesn't have Warren's knack for showing the law in action. The jurist showed the businessman just how transparency is done using a clever tool that made a damning point about the billionaire presidential candidate and served as a teachable moment for American workers.

  • Although I tagged and painted and pasted up much of Brooklyn and a bit of Manhattan, I never dared work on 5Pointz in Long Island City because it was clearly reserved for established street artists. As such, I have followed the case about the willful destruction of the works there with great interest

    Although I tagged and painted and pasted up much of Brooklyn and a bit of Manhattan, I never dared work on 5Pointz in Long Island City because it was clearly reserved for established street artists. As such, I have followed the case about the willful destruction of the works there with great interest and am delighted to report that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the stature of transient works of aerosol art.

  • Kudos to the attorneys for the Appalachian Trail for their masterful handling of the federal government's paradoxical claim that the national scenic footpath isn't land. An intriguing case with great briefs. I can't wait for the Supreme Court hearing on Monday!

  • I have been waiting for Anne's take on the scandalous draft executive order on classic architecture and it did not disappoint! Many commentators have responded to the Trump administration's proposed design edict but no one has explained why it misunderstands history and the philosophy it claims to espouse... until now.

  • Next month, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in what should be an open and shut case. The matter out of Louisiana resembles a similar dispute over a Texas statute that was already ruled unconstitutional.

    Many people believe the new case was brought to the 2020 bench by design, to test the junior

    Next month, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in what should be an open and shut case. The matter out of Louisiana resembles a similar dispute over a Texas statute that was already ruled unconstitutional.

    Many people believe the new case was brought to the 2020 bench by design, to test the junior justices appointed by Donald Trump. Pro-life activists hope to see the court's abortion precedent overruled. Court commentators see that possibility but some wonder if the justices will really fall into the activists' trap.

  • Bill Barr has come under fire this week for seeming to be more like president Donald Trump's personal attorney than the chief law enforcement officer of the US. After a rough couple of days he tried to redeem himself by publicly chiding the president. But few lawyers bought it, and today he became the

    Bill Barr has come under fire this week for seeming to be more like president Donald Trump's personal attorney than the chief law enforcement officer of the US. After a rough couple of days he tried to redeem himself by publicly chiding the president. But few lawyers bought it, and today he became the subject of an ethics complaint.

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at an event about the Equal Rights Amendment this week and explained her concerns about possible future obstacles. The clause has struggled for a century and was the subject of a vote in the House today. Here is what she said at the event—I was there—and why she upset some feminists

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at an event about the Equal Rights Amendment this week and explained her concerns about possible future obstacles. The clause has struggled for a century and was the subject of a vote in the House today. Here is what she said at the event—I was there—and why she upset some feminists, despite her impeccable credentials as an advocate for women's advancement. (To me it sounds like critics misunderstood or were making much ado about nothing).

  • On Monday I went to hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak at an event about women's suffrage and the Equal Rights Amendment and picked up this gem. It turns out, though official accounts of the Supreme Court don't say so, that the land on which the high court now stands was taken from the National Woman's Party

    On Monday I went to hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak at an event about women's suffrage and the Equal Rights Amendment and picked up this gem. It turns out, though official accounts of the Supreme Court don't say so, that the land on which the high court now stands was taken from the National Woman's Party in a hard-fought eminent domain case argued by a pioneering female jurist who would go on to be the first federal district court judge. Here is the story.