Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Bloomberg Law.
This is a special Thursday edition of the live blog; the Court added it to its calendar at the end of last week. We expect that the Court will do something similar next week, but we won't know for sure until later on today, I imagine.
As a reminder, especially to all of you waiting on the Court's order in the Argentine bond case, which is scheduled for review at today's Conference, we do not expect any orders today -- only opinions in argued cases.
And we also do not know which opinions we will get today -- we will find out beginning at 10 as our reporter, Lyle Denniston, relays them to us from the Court's press room.
Good morning from the press room at the Court.
We have gotten a lot of questions about whether specific cases will be decided today. The answer is that we just don't know. I would be surprised if we got Hobby Lobby, the cellphone cases, Aereo, or Alice Corp. today, but that's just my best guess based on a combination of when they were argued and whether there are complicated issues and/or likely to be multiple opinions. Pretty much anything else I think would be fair game. We'll know more in about five minutes.
One box of opinions today; means 1 or 2, probably.
We have the first opinion. Clark v. Rameker.
The decision is by Sotomayor for a unanimous Court. The Seventh Circuit is affirmed.
Funds held in an inherited IRA account are not retirement funds within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code.
This case was argued on March 24.
The Court announces opinions in order of reverse seniority, which means we will not hear from Justice Kagan today.
But we could still hear from anyone else.
We have the second and last opinion.
POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.
Justice Kennedy has the opinion for the unanimous Court, although Justice Breyer did not participate.
The Ninth Circuit is reversed.
And the Court holds that competitors may bring Lanham Act claims like POM's challenging food and beverage labels regulated under the Food and Drug Act.
This is a case in which Goldstein & Russell was among the counsel to the petitioner.
And I want to reiterate what I have said earlier in the live blog: Lyle compiled a list of the opinion dates from LAST June just to give us an idea of what we MIGHT expect from the Court this Term, and I shared it with you to give you an idea of what the Court could do this year. But that was just last year's schedule. Right now all we know is that the Court is likely to release opinions next Monday at 10 am, because it has a non-argument session scheduled on its calendar. We also think that it is very likely that the Court will add extra opinion days next week and in the future. We do NOT know yet whether there actually be such extra days, when those days will be, or how many opinions we will get on those days.
Yes, that is all for today. The Court has not yet posted the opinion in POM Wonderful, but we will post the link as soon as it is available.
And we will let you know as soon as we know what the schedule might look like for next week. But, one more time, we don't know it yet.
And then, although we don't have confirmation, the Court is likely to issue opinions in argued cases at 10 am. We will report on those as they are released.
For those of you who are just joining us, the Court issued only two opinions today, in Clark v. Rameker and POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola. It did not issue any others; so we are still waiting on (among many) McCullen v. Coakley (this is in response to several questions). Nothing else today; the always wonderful Ronald Mann will have our full analysis of both Clark and POM. Have a good weekend, and we will type to you next week!