Good morning from the Court's press room.
As usual, we do not know which opinions will be issued today, only that there will be some. Same tomorrow.
We've had some interest in why the Court did nothing yesterday on the washing machine/foul odor cases. Those are being rescheduled for a future look.
We are still waiting for the Court to do something on the Little Sisters case on the contraceptive mandate's impact on religious charities and schools. No word on what is holding that up. Could come at any time, though.
The audios of oral arguments are not available until the end of the week. The Court very seldom issues same-day audios any more.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Bloomberg Law.
There was a leak in the "gold clause" decision in the Thirties. Old timers always remember that. There was a bit of a leak about Roe v. Wade, but it was not definitive.
But returning to the subject of who is writing what in October, I have to think that we will know a lot more soon -- either today or, at a minimum, tomorrow.
Here's Lyle. We have the first decision, in Mississippi v. AU Optronics. Justice Sotomayor has the opinion for a unanimous Ct. The Fifth Circuit is reversed. Because MS is the only named plaintiff, this suit does not constitute a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
There is only one box. There will be more, beyond the first one.
There will be more opinions. The AU Optronics case was argued in November, so it doesn't shed any light on the who-is-writing-what-in-October question.
Sotomayor also already has her October opinion out, in Kansas v. Cheever.
Here's the second and final opinion. It is in Daimler AG v. Bauman.
Justice Ginsburg writes for the Court. The Ninth Circuit is reversed. The Court holds that Daimler is not amenable to suit in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of an Argentine firm that took place entirely outside the U.S.
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment.
Disclosure: Kevin Russell, an attorney with Goldstein & Russell and a contributor to this blog, argued on behalf of the respondents in Daimler.
Daimler was an October case, and it makes sense that Ginsburg -- the Court's jurisdiction and procedure maven -- would write.
The opinion in AU Optronics is here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1036_0971.pdf
The opinion in Daimer is here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-965_1qm2.pdf
That's all for now. Stay tuned for more detailed analysis of today's opinions, from Lyle on Daimler and Ronald Mann on AU Optronics. Lyle will also be back to report on today's oral arguments in Executive Benefits and Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust. I'm tired just thinking about it, but fortunately it's all in a day's work for him. Thanks for joining us, and we hope to see you back here to see what the Court has for us tomorrow!