Good morning from the Court's press room. Nice day in Washington.
Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog. On Monday, September 29 the Court met for the "Long Conference," the first conference since the end of June at which they considered new petitions for review. To be clear, the Court has made no announcement regarding when it will release orders from Monday's conference, we have decided to be ready.
In recent years, the Court had released grants from the Long Conference the day after the Conference itself. It did not do so this year, obviously. (It has traditionally released the denials on the following Monday -- i.e., next Monday.)
The Indiana marriage petition is one of the seven that went to the Conference. We don't know if anything will be said today about any of them.
No orders on any of the same-sex marriage cases.
The Court notes jurisdiction in one redistricting case and then there are ten grants.
The redistricting case is the Arizona one.
The Court has rephrased two questions but postponed the determination of jurisdiction.
The grants include an EEOC case against Abercrombie & Fitch.
There is a grant of a petition by John Kerry.
The Court has granted the Florida case on judges' solicitation of campaign contributions.
The John Kerry case requires the Court to clarify the power of consular officers to deny visas to those who want to enter the U.S.
The Court did take the new Fair Housing Act case, limiting the grant to question one. That is whether the Fair Housing Act allows claims based on disparate impact.
There are no CVSGs today, although those could come later.
So to clarify, the Court did not act on any of the same-sex marriage cases. This could mean a couple of different things. It could mean that the petitions will be denied when the Court issues the rest of the orders from Monday's conference -- probably on Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. It could also mean that the Justices are taking more time to look at the cases: there are seven different petitions, involving a couple of different issues and different stances by state officials. Even if there are four votes to take up the issue, they may need additional time to figure out which case(s) and which question(s). The next conference is scheduled for next Friday, October 10, so if review is not denied on Monday, October 6, we likely would not hear anything until Tuesday, October 14 (because October 13 is a federal holiday).
About the AZ redistricting case: although the Court has complete discretion about granting or denying review in the vast no. of cases, there remain a few areas where there is supposed to be mandatory jurisdiction. If the Court has one of those cases and has a bit of doubt about its jurisdiction, it will postpone jurisdiction, rather than simply "not jurisdiction." Counsel will be expected to address that question along with the merits in briefs and oral argument.
I meant rather than simple note jurisdiction. That is what it does when it has a mandatory case and is satisfied that it does have jurisdiction.
In short, the AZ case will be heard this term, almost as if cert were granted.
The Court finished filling its Jan. argument calendar day, with six grants beyond that, which will likely be argued in February. Then it has to fill all slots in March and April. Likely yearend total about 75 overall.
For those pondering the prospect for a denial of all seven marriage cases: if the
If the Court were to deny all seven petitions on marriage, that would release marriage rulings for 11 more states, the ones covered by the existing circuit court rulings, pushing the total to 30. It is rather doubtful that the Court that granted stays for Utah and Virginia is prepared for that to happen.
With today's grants, the Court continues to add interesting and consequential cases, but so far no blockbusters. The Texas Fair Housing Act case will be the third time that this issue has come to the Court. During the first two go-rounds, the cases settled before the Court could weigh in.
Well, it was nice to be back. Thanks to all of you who came out at the last second. We will have more coverage of today's orders later on this morning, with some of our previews of next week's merits cases to follow as well. Have a great weekend, and type to you soon!
Among the cases granted today, which we did not note earlier, is a new police traffic stop case -- 13-9972, Rodriguez v. U.S. The issue is whether it is enough for police to have reasonable suspicion if the officers, after the end of the traffic stop, want to go beyond either a canine sniff or a few non-incriminating questions. The petition asks if further inquiry or search is a de minimis intrusion.