Good morning. Welcome to the first live blog of 2021!
We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases to be released starting at 10 a.m.
As usual during the COVID era, the opinions will be posted on the Supreme Court's website in 10-minute increments. We'll report on them here in real time.
Nice to see you, everyone! A few technical hiccups, but glad to be here.
Hi Amy! Also joining us this morning is our media editor, Katie Barlow. Welcome, Katie.
Good morning, folks! Joining you from my dining room table on this chilly DC morning.
Hi everyone. We're trying something new this term. If you want to ask a question or make a comment, you can do so via the comment bubble at the top - same as always. But if you'd like to reply to an existing question/comment, you should see a field for that in the live blog itself. Feel free to send us your thoughts either way.
Begin refreshing on my iPad.
We have the first opinion of the day, in Chicago v. Fulton.
Actually, it appears to be the only opinion of the day.
It is by Justice Alito, and the vote is 8-0. Barrett did not participate, and Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
The question in the case is whether an entity violates the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, which bars "any act . . . to exercise control over property," when it retains possession of a debtor's property after a bankruptcy petition is filed. The court holds that just holding on to the property does not violate the Bankruptcy Code.
Justice Alito's opinion makes it about halfway down the seventh page, so not a long one.
Justice Sotomayor says that she writes "separately to emphasize that the Court has not decided whether and when" other parts of the Bankruptcy Code " may require a creditor to return a debtor's property."
She notes that this was a case involving the city's refusal to return impounded cars, and says that even if it "satisfies the letter of the Code, it hardly comports with its spirit." In particular, she notes that having a car is important for many people to be able to stay employed.
The concurring opinion is, as one of our readers just noted, almost as long as the opinion itself.
I apologize, because I'm having trouble approving the comments and getting them to show up on the left side of the live blog. But we know from the "R" numbers that this was the only opinion for the day. The R numbers have always been there, but I never paid any attention to them until the pandemic; hopefully Kal can post a link to the longer explanation.
And, yes, congrats to Kal for calling this opinion!
Thanks, everyone, for stopping by. I'm heading out to keep working on my previews for next week's arguments. Take care, and stay safe!
Thanks for joining us! -KB
Thank you, everyone! The court has a busy few days coming up: There may be more cert grants on Friday, additional orders next Tuesday and two more oral arguments on Tuesday as well.
In addition, the federal government has two scheduled executions of people on death row -- one scheduled for tonight and one for tomorrow. Emergency litigation is ongoing and we expect the court will ultimately decide whether those executions can proceed.
We'll see you next time on the live blog for the next opinion day, whenever that may be!
I think James covered it all. Thanks for joining! Stay tuned for our opinion analysis of Chicago v. Fulton from Danielle D'Onfro, and hopefully the next live blog (next Thursday, maybe?) will be more exciting.
Submit Event
