Washington — The Supreme Court will convene Tuesday morning for the second day of arguments conducted remotely by telephone due to the coronavirus pandemic, which has left the stately courtroom closed to the public and forced the high court to embrace technology.

In an hour-long session, the justices are set to hear arguments in a dispute over whether a condition for federal funding imposed on organizations fighting HIV/AIDS abroad is constitutional.

Congress passed in 2003 the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act, which included the condition that nongovernmental organizations receiving funds under the law must “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 the policy requirement for U.S.-based organizations violates the First Amendment. But the justices are now asked to determine whether the government can apply the funding condition to affiliates of U.S.-based groups incorporated overseas. A federal district court ruled applying the funding requirement to those foreign affiliates is unconstitutional, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

What: The Supreme Court hears arguments by telephone in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International

Date: Tuesday, May 5

Time: 10 a.m. ET

Online stream: Live on CBSN — in the player above and on your mobile or streaming device

The court, like millions of Americans, government institutions and businesses, has been forced to change the way it conducts its business because of the coronavirus pandemic. As part of efforts to ensure the safety of the justices and court employees, the Supreme Court building has closed its doors to the public indefinitely and canceled oral arguments in cases scheduled for March and April.

But for a select number of those cases, the technology-resistant Supreme Court decided to move into the digital age by holding arguments by telephone conference over six days in May. The court is also providing live audio of those sessions, a first for the institution that only rarely allows for same-day audio of high-profile legal battles.

Among the remaining cases set to be heard remotely are a dispute over Obamacare’s contraception mandate, which will be argued Wednesday, as well as closely watched fights over subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records and a case involving the Electoral College, which will take place next week.

The Supreme Court’s first foray into telephonic arguments went off with few issues Monday, when the justices heard a trademark dispute between the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Booking.com, which sought to trademark the name.

Chief Justice John Roberts kept questioning by his colleagues moving swiftly, as he frequently cut off the lawyers involved or urged them to answer briefly.

In-person arguments are typically a free-for-all, with justices jumping in to ask their questions and at times talking over one another. But under the new format, the justices are posing their questions one-by-one in order of seniority, with Roberts beginning, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all the way to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Thomas, who typically does not ask questions during oral arguments, posed several to both attorneys arguing Monday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Democrats on track to elect first openly gay Black lawmakers to Congress

Two years after LGBTQ candidates made historic gains in federal, state and local elections across the country, two New York Democratic House candidates are on the verge of crossing a new milestone in the halls of Congress. Attorney Mondaire Jones…

Crime fell in a locked-down New York City — but less than you might think

For New Yorkers of a certain age, photos of empty New York City streets evoke a particular question: how much safer is the city when everyone is being asked to stay at home? It’s by no means the most important…

Ruling that would expand Texas mail-in voting put on hold by appeals court

Judge Jeanine Pirro discusses push for vote-by-mail with Tucker Carlson. Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox.  Sign up here. A federal appeals court Wednesday quickly put on a hold a ruling that…

‘We can’t fulfil our basic needs in this pandemic’

A mother has called on Boris Johnson to provide support for those migrants who have been financially hit by coronavirus, but cannot claim benefits. Speaking to BBC Radio 4, the woman said her family had lost more than 60% of…