Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog.
The justices returned from their winter recess yesterday, to hear oral arguments in (among others) the cross-border shooting case Hernandez v. Mesa.
So we are likely to get one or more opinions today, although -- as is almost always the case -- we don't know how many or which ones.
There is just one argument today, in Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark, an arbitration case, so it's relatively quiet here in the press room.
The five-minute buzzer sounded a minute or so ago.
There appear to be two boxes today. For those of you who are new here, the number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions.
Going to wait in line for opinions now; back soon.
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, unanimous, by Kagan
Alito concurs in part and concurs in judgment joined by Thomas
Exhaustion under Individuals with disabilities act not necessary when gravamen of suit is something other than denial of IDEA's core guarantee
of a free and appropriate public education
Court is sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Frys' complaint alleges only disability based discrimination without referring to adequacy of services the school provided, but the court does not "foreclose the possibility that the history of these proceedings might suggest something different."
We could still get another opinion from Kagan or from another justice.
Second opinion from Sotomayor, Life Technologies v Promega, also unanimous
Holding: The supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for a manufacturer abroad does not give rise to liability under Section 271 (F)(1) of the Patent Act, which prohibits the supply from the US of "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination abroad. Decision in favor of Promega is reversed and remanded because only a single component of the patent invention at issue here was supplied from the US
Here too we have a very short separate opinion from Alito, joined by Thomas
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Quote from concurrence: "I do not read the opinion to suggest that any number greater than one is sufficient. In other words, today's opinion establishes that more than one component is necessary but does not address how much more."
Another opinion is coming.
Buck v Davis from Chief Justice Roberts. Reversed and remanded, 6-2
Thomas dissents, joined by Alito
This is the case in which the jury could impose death sentence only if it found Buck was likely to commit acts of violence in future. Defense psychologist testified that Buck was statistically more likely to be violent because he is black
Roberts says effect of that testimony on his sentencing cannot be dismissed as de minimis
Buck has demonstrated both that his counsel was ineffective for calling the psychologist and that Buck was entitled to relief under Rule 60b6, which allows court to reopen judgment under extraordinary circumstances
So Fifth Circuit erred when it denied the certificate of appealability Buck needed to pursue these claims on appeal.
That's all for today. Thank you very much for joining us!
That was the final opinion for today.