Live blog of opinions | June 22, 2017
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our special-edition Thursday live blog.
-
So, just to get this out of the way, we are NOT expecting any orders on, to name a few, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Peruta v. California, Sessions v. Binderup, or the travel ban.
-
Orders from today's conference will come on Monday morning.
-
Amy, your roundup of the 12 remaining cases this morning was great.
www.scotusblog.com -
What is the expectation for any additional days after Monday?
-
Amy, when would they make the decision on Masterpiece, for example?
-
Thanks, as always, for providing this service live and for free!
-
We try to answer as many questions as possible. We've also prepared a list of answers to frequently asked questions. That can be found at this link (N.B., we don't expect orders today, just opinions): www.scotusblog.com
-
How many cert grants (approx) are needed to fill the October term caseload?
-
I would love to see a piece in Scotusblog differentiating between the various sorts of briefs, grants, and reversals... e.g "sub nom"; "summary reversal"; "CF Brief" et. al. Yes, I'm that nerdy!
-
So no chance of getting decisions on the stay motions in the travel ban cases today?
-
Good morning everyone and hello from sunny Maracaibo, Venezuela! I really enjoyed your post regarding the last 12 cases Amy. I also like to read the "tea leaves" and guess who's writing each of the outstanding opinions
-
The five minute buzzer has already sounded. Two boxes this morning.
-
does that mean two opinions will issue? sorry, this is my first time on this blog and I am waiting on the Davila case argued April 24
-
The first opinion is Maslenjak v. US, by Justice Kagan. Vacated and remanded.
-
The court holds that the government must establish an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. Whenn the illegal act is a false statement, that means the government must demonstrate that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, b/c they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts.
-
This was a case in which a Bosnian Serb came to the US as a refugee, fleeing ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia.
-
Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined the opinion in full.
-
Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment, joined by Thomas.
-
In this case, Maslenjak had said (among other things) that her family feared persecution from Muslims and that they might be abused b/c her husband had evaded service in the army. But it turned out that he had served in a brigade that participated in an infamous massacre.
-
The decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals is affirmed. This was a case in which several men were convicted of a brutal murder, but later discovered that the government had failed to disclose evidence to the defense.
-
The Supreme Court had asked the parties to brief whether the convictions should be set aside under Brady v. Maryland.
-
Today Breyer writes that the question before the court was whether the withheld evidence was material under Brady, which would mean that the convictions could not stand. But the D.C. courts had ruled that the evidence was not material, and Breyer writes, "we reach the same conclusion as the lower courts.'
-
Breyer's opinion is joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and (somewhat surprisingly to me) Sotomayor.
-
The next and final decision is from Kennedy, in Weaver v. Massachusetts.
-
This was a case in which the supporters of a teenager charged with murder were denied admission to the courtroom.
-
But the defendant's lawyer did not object to the closure of the courtroom at trial or on direct appeal.
-
Amy Howe will have our analysis in Turner v. U.S. Here is a link to the court's opinion: www.supremecourt.gov
-
Rory Little will have our analysis in Weaver v. Massachusetts. Here is a link to the court's opinion: www.supremecourt.gov
-
The justices will be back tomorrow morning with more opinions.
-
Apologies for the delay in sending a link to Maslenjak-- the Supreme Court website seems to be having some technical difficulties
-
I am waiting for Hernandez v. Mesa. Will there be more opinions? I represent respondent Mesa.
-
The court rules that, although the right to a public trial is important, "in some cases an unlawful closure might take place and yet the trial still will be fundamentally fair from the defendant's standpoint."
-
This appears to be one of these cases, b/c Weaver had not shown a "reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel's failure to object, and he had not shown that counsel's shortcomings led to a fundamentally unfair trial. He is not entitled to a new trial."