Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Bloomberg Law.
We are expecting only opinions in argued cases this morning. As is almost always the case, we don't know which ones we are getting, but we will relay them to you as we learn about them from our reporter, Lyle Denniston.
Here are the cases that are left. From January: NLRB v. Noel Canning (recess appointments), McCullen v. Coakley (abortion clinic buffer zones), and Harris v. Quinn (public employee unions).
From March: Hobby Lobby (contraception mandate) and Fifth Third v. Dudenhoffer (fiduciary obligations).
From April: ABC v. Aereo (internet TV streaming) and the two cellphone privacy cases.
Good morning from the Court's press room.
This will be a two-box opinion day.
Waiting for Lyle to come and tell us which opinion is first.
Here's Lyle. First opinion by Breyer. Fifth Third.
The decision of the Sixth Circuit is vacated and remanded. Unanimous.
Breyer will have another opinion, Lyle reports.
The Court holds that the fiduciaries of an employee stock option plan are not entitled to any presumption of prudence in the investment decisions made by the plan administrator.
They are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the fund's assets.
The Court also indicates that on remand, the Sixth Circuit should reconsider whether the complaint states a claim by applying the pleading standard as discussed in Iqbal and Twombly.
Waiting to hear what else Justice Breyer has for us today. It's unanimous, so we should know fairly soon, I hope.
The latter holding in Fifth Third makes clear that ESOP fiduciaries can't be expected to violate insider trading laws.
Still waiting for Lyle. Am afraid that if I start answering questions, he will come back on the line.
Here's Lyle. Second opinion is Aereo
ABC v. Aereo. The opinion is 6-3. Decision of the Second Circuit is reversed.
Aereo performs petitioner's works publicly within the meaning of the transmit clause of the Copyright Act.
Scalia dissents, joined by Thomas and Alito.
Scalia says in dissent that he concludes that Aereo does not perform at all.
We do expect additional opinions today.
This ruling appears sweeping and definitive, determining that Aereo is illegal.
The Court goes out of its way to make clear that its ruling does not endanger other technologies.
The essence of the Aereo ruling is that Aereo is equivalent to a cable company, not merely an equipment provider.