Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our second live-blog day this week.
We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases. As is almost always the case, we don't know how many cases or which ones.
We still have most of the October cases outstanding. Yesterday's cases were from November (Hernandez v. Mesa) and December (Rodriguez, Monasky, and McKinney).
Also, just a heads-up that I will be leaving after opinions to go upstairs for oral arguments, so my apologies in advance if I ghost you.
There is just one argument today, in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen is slated to argue on behalf of the government.
The five-minute buzzer just sounded.
We have two boxes again today. For those of you who are new or new-ish here, the number of boxes of opinions waiting in the Public Information Office to be distributed at 10 am is a rough proxy for the number of opinions that we might get. As an illustration, yesterday there were two boxes and we got four opinions. The opinion in Hernandez v Mesa was reasonably long, while the opinions in McKinney and Rodriguez were pretty short.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a busy winter recess. She wrote the court's opinion in one case yesterday (Monasky v. Taglieri) and two dissenting opinions.
Headed in for opinions now.
We have the first opinion of the day, in Intel Corporation v. Sulyma. It is from Justice Alito, and it is unanimous.
The decision of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.
Going back in because Alito's summaries are usually quite brief.
Breyer has the next opinion, in Holguin-Hernandez v. US. It is unanimous, and the decision of the Fifth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
The court holds that the petitioner's district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long.
A party who informs the court of the "action" he "wishes the court to take," the court holds, ordinarily brings to the court's attention his objection to a contrary decision.
Justice Ginsburg has the third and final opinion of the day, in Shular v. US. The decision is unanimous, affirming the Eleventh Circuit.
The Court holds that in the Armed Career Criminal Act, Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)'s "serious drug offense" definition requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses.
That is all for today. Hopefully we will have more opinions next week.
Alright, that's a wrap for today. 7 opinions this week, 13 total (incl. 2 in nonargued cases) this term. If the court announces more opinion days for next week on Friday, we'll be back with more live blogs to cover them. Thanks for joining!
Submit Event
