Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog.
Good morning, and welcome to our live blog!
We are expecting one or more opinions today in argued cases. Will we get an arbitration case from October, or an arbitration case from November?
As we reported last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not expected on the bench this week. She'll participate by reading the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments, as she did last week.
The press room is abuzz right now because a federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration on the addition of a citizenship question to the census. The question now is what this does to the case in which the justices are scheduled to hear oral argument on February 19, involving the dispute over evidence in the trial.
Five minute buzzer sounded a minute or two ago.
This will not be a huge surprise, but we have just one box today. For those of you who aren't regulars here, the number of boxes of opinions waiting in the PIO to be handed out is a rough proxy for the number of opinions that we can expect.
Headed in now to wait for opinions. Back soon-ish.
We have arbitration case from October. It is New Prime v. Oliveira, from Gorsuch.
The decision of the lower court is affirmed, and it is unanimous except for Justice Kavanaugh, who did not participate.
Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.
The court holds that a court should determine whether an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act under Section 1 of the act applies before ordering arbitration.
Because the FAA's term "contract of employment" refers to any agreement to perform work, the court rules, Mr. Oliveira's agreement with New Prime -- he was a driver whose agreement called him an independent contractor -- falls within the exception for Section 1.
Going back in for the next one.
We have the second and final decision of the day. It is Stokeling v. United States, by Justice Thomas. Interesting line-up: Thomas opinion is joined by Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, and Kagan.
The Court holds that a robbery offense that has as an element the use of force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance necessitates the use of "physical force" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Robbery under Florida law, the court continues, corresponds to that level of force and therefore qualifies as a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act's "elements clause."
Okay, that's all we have for today. The justices are holding a non-argument session next Tuesday, which *could* include issuing more opinions, but we just don't know yet. Have a good week, stay warm (if you are on the east coast) or dry (on the west), and hopefully we'll see you next week.
Submit Event
