Scribble

Live blog of opinions | April 18, 2017

3rd & 7 37yd

Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:43:53 PM

Comment ()
I am down at the court waiting for possible opinions at 10 am.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:44:13 PM

Comment ()
We could get a pretty wide range of opinions today. There is still one opinion left from October: Manrique v. United States. Justice Thomas is the only justice who does not yet have an opinion from October, so he is likely the author of that decision, whenever it comes.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:45:36 PM

Comment ()
There are three decisions left from November: Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International; Bank of America v. Miami; and Sessions v. Morales-Santana. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer do not yet have any November decisions, so presumably they each have at least one of theirs; the third one could be just about anyone's.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:47:09 PM

Comment ()
And from December we have Jennings v. Rodriguez and McCrory v. Harris; Roberts, Alito, and Kagan have not yet written for December. Thanks to the blog's Andrew Hamm for putting these together.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:48:15 PM

Comment ()
Is it reasonable to think Packingham V North Carolina could be one?

by AnonMoose 4/18/2017 1:48:34 PM

Comment ()
Since the Chief wrote two opinions for January, do you think it's likely that Kagan & Alito are writing for December?

by Kevin 4/18/2017 1:49:07 PM

Comment ()
Anyone noteworthy there yesterday for Justice Gorsuch's first day on the bench? His family? Retired justices? Etc?

by Scotusblog fan 4/18/2017 1:50:05 PM

Comment ()
If a case comes from a circuit in which a new justice sat doe s he or she recuse even if he or she was not on the panel which decided the case?

by Schmerguls G. 4/18/2017 1:51:30 PM

Comment ()
How likely is a 4-4 summary affirmance in the City of Miami cases? Unless the Court comes to some compromise position (which Gorsuch's confirmation may motivate on the liberals' side), it is hard to count to five for a reversal.

by Thomas 4/18/2017 1:52:46 PM

Comment ()
Last time one reader asked about the quickest turnaround to hearing a case in recent memory. Here’s what I found going back to Stevens.

John Roberts, 4 days: Confirmed September 29, 2005, heard first case on October 3, 2005 (Roberts had already been confirmed for O’Connor’s seat on September 6, 2005, which would be 27 days)
David Souter, 7 days: Confirmed on October 2, 1990, heard first case on October 9, 1990
Sandra Day O’Connor, 14 days: Confirmed on September 21, 1981, heard first case on October 5, 1981
Antonin Scalia, 19 days: Confirmed on September 17, 1986, heard first case on October 6, 1986
Anthony Kennedy, 19 days: Confirmed on February 3, 1988, heard first case on February 22, 1988
Clarence Thomas, 20 days: Confirmed October 15, heard first case on November 4, 1991
Samuel Alito, 21 days: Confirmed January 31, 2006, heard first case on February 21, 2006
John Paul Stevens, 26 days: Confirmed on December 17, 1975, heard first case on January 12, 1976

Thank you to Oyez and the U.S. Senate. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

by Andrew Hamm 4/18/2017 1:53:13 PM

Comment ()
I didn't see Louise Gorsuch yesterday, but didn't look that closely at the other side of the courtroom.

by Circuit Justice assignments 4/18/2017 1:53:50 PM

Comment ()
Just had the five-minute buzzer.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:55:03 PM

Comment ()
going in to wait for opinions.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 1:56:42 PM

Comment ()
Any chance that Gorsuch will write an opinion this term?

by Gagafor Gorsuch 4/18/2017 1:56:56 PM

Comment ()
First opinion. Goodyear Tire v Haeger by Kagan

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:01:01 PM

Comment ()
Reversed and remanded

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:01:07 PM

Comment ()
When a federal court exercises its inherent authority to sanction bad faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side's legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:02:05 PM

Comment ()
To put it another way, the award is limited to the fees that the party would not have incurred but for the bad faith.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:02:37 PM

Comment ()
The district court has broad discretion to calculate fee awards under that standard.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:03:00 PM

Comment ()
Howard Wasserman will have our analysis in Goodyear. Here is the opinion. www.supremecourt.gov

by Andrew Hamm 4/18/2017 2:03:09 PM

Comment ()
Only one box today.

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 2:03:37 PM

Comment ()
But here, the court granted legal fees beyond those resulting from the litigation misconduct, so this award cannot stand.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:03:40 PM

Comment ()
8-0, 13 pages.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:03:46 PM

Comment ()
Amy is going for the next one. Probably not more than one more, because there is only one box.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:04:07 PM

Comment ()
Second and final opinion. Coventry Health Care v Nevils. 8-0, by Ginsburg, concurrence by Thomas.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:04:50 PM

Comment ()
Argued March 1.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:04:58 PM

Comment ()
Reversed and remanded

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:05:58 PM

Comment ()
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Act's express preemption provision overrides state law barring subrogation and reimbursement.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:06:50 PM

Comment ()
Ronald Mann will have our analysis in Coventry. Here is the opinion. www.supremecourt.gov

by Andrew Hamm 4/18/2017 2:06:57 PM

Comment ()
The regime Congress enacted is compatible with the Supremacy Clause.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:07:24 PM

Comment ()
Barely 11 pages. Thomas has a one-paragraph concurrence.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:07:37 PM

Comment ()
That is all the opinions for today.

by Edith Roberts 4/18/2017 2:07:54 PM

Comment ()
Do we know how Gorsuch has staffed his chambers with clerks? Did he bring some in with him, or is he relying on a pool?

by Col. Mustard 4/18/2017 2:08:25 PM

Comment ()
And that is all she wrote. We are still waiting on Manrique and the November cases. Maybe we will get one of them tomorrow? We will be back here again at 9:45; hope to see you then!

by Amy Howe 4/18/2017 2:10:24 PM

Comment ()
Thanks, everyone!

by Andrew Hamm 4/18/2017 2:12:11 PM

Comment ()

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 12 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti and Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton and North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in United States v. Davis and McDonough v. Smith.
On Thursday, the justices met for their April 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

Editor's Note :

Scribble

Live blog of opinions | April 18, 2017

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award