Scribble

Live blog of opinions | June 22, 2018 (with First Mondays)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released opinions in Carpenter v. United States, Currier v. Virginia, Ortiz v. United States and WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. Guest bloggers from First Mondays joined us from 9 to 9:45 a.m.

3rd & 7 37yd

I'm guessing Friday would be a strange day for a major decision. In other words, would it be reasonable to assume Janus won't be today? Thanks.

by Bob 6/22/2018 1:50:58 PM
I know Televising SCOTUS gets raised every now and then. The UK Supreme court is live streamed - hearings and hand downs of decisions.

Another difference is that the UK Court announces which decisions it will deliver a week in advance AND the parties involved get told what the decision is and see the written judgement. Never been a leak yet - even the major Brexit case a couple of years ago.

Also in the UK it is very rare for the full court (12) to hear a case - it's usually smaller panels of 5 or 7.

by Chris In England 6/22/2018 1:52:18 PM
The Court's IT folks deserve some long overdue props. No leaks, the website doesn't crash, and the opinions are uploaded simultaneously as the justices read them aloud.

by Michael 6/22/2018 1:52:24 PM
Why not just dump all the opinions today? Will a few more days make much of a difference?

by Joseph 6/22/2018 1:52:29 PM
#how many boxes?

by Carpenter Ant 6/22/2018 1:52:52 PM
Justice Thomas visited my law school the year before I began my 1L year. Apparently they set him up in the faculty lounge to meet different people throughout the day, and he just kept asking to meet more and more people. Eventually, they ran out of faculty, etc., so they brought up the building maintenance staff to visit.

by cwgivens21 6/22/2018 1:53:29 PM
If Court announces opinions on Monday, will they also announce that it's the last day of the Term? If they don't announce that, we can assume more days will come?

by John 6/22/2018 1:53:58 PM
If some of the Relists that has been punted for months isn't taken up next Monday does that mean SCOTUS is refusing to take it or is it just punted to the start of next term (this Fall) to consider?

by Freeman 6/22/2018 1:54:55 PM
Five minute buzzer just sounded. Getting closer. We have three boxes!

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 1:55:27 PM
New here, what is a box? wondering why all the talk about boxes?

by Thisandthat 6/22/2018 1:55:39 PM
For comparison, we had two yesterday.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 1:55:42 PM
@Amy - well not perfectly but our Supreme Court certainly generates less political activity than yours. Maybe because our Justices arn't political appointments in the same way - certainly no confirmation hearings for example.

I guess not having a written constitution helps as well!

by Chris In England 6/22/2018 1:55:47 PM
Supreme Court (or any federal court) decisions _never_ leak in advance. Is there any sort of law criminalizing their early release, or just strong social pressure?

by Alex 6/22/2018 1:56:11 PM
If it's three boxes, four opinions, I'm claiming 50% of infinite glory.

by Eric Citron 6/22/2018 1:56:33 PM
Amy: I'm almost positive the Chief says at the end of the second-to-last opinion day that the next opinion day is the last one.

by Shashakiro 6/22/2018 1:57:05 PM
@amy i think that story was from ian!

by ar 6/22/2018 1:57:47 PM
Okay, time to go in to wait. Back ssoon.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 1:58:14 PM
@alex Most likely because very few people know what the decision is, and the people that do would be outed immediately and it would have major professional consequences

by Rusty V. Shackelford 6/22/2018 1:58:16 PM
Do you know how many people are viewing the live blogpost?

by Mike DC 6/22/2018 2:00:41 PM
We have the first case, from Gorsuch. It is Currier v. Virginia, and it is affirmed.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:01:36 PM
Does anyone else follow so often that you feel like the regulars are old friends? (Even if you are quiet)?

by Bassclarinets 6/22/2018 2:01:38 PM
The issue in this case is whether a defendant who is indicted on multiple charges and agrees to have the charges tried in separate charges gives up his right to benefit from an acquittal in his first trial. In this case, a Virginia man, Michael Currier, was charged with breaking and entering, larceny, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He agreed to have the felon-in-possession charge tried separately; after he was acquitted on the breaking and entering/larceny charges, he argued that he couldn’t be tried on the question of whether he had a gun during a burglary because the jury had concluded that he hadn’t taken part in the burglary.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:01:48 PM
Here's the opinion in Currier v. Virginia. Lissa Griffin will have our analysis:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1348_h315.pdf

by Andrew Hamm 6/22/2018 2:03:01 PM
In Parts I and II of the ruling, the court holds that because Currier agreed to have the charges tried separately, his trial and conviction on the felon-in-possession charge did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:03:04 PM
That takes Gorsuch out of February, which suggests again that Alito has Janus.

by Eric Citron 6/22/2018 2:03:13 PM
In Part III, which is Gorsuch joined by the Chief Justice and Thomas and Alito, the Court concludes that civil issue preclusion principles cannot be imported into the criminal law through the Double Jeopardy Clause. Kennedy concluded that they didn't need to reach this issue.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:03:55 PM
Ginsburg dissents, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:04:13 PM
Gorsuch first means we could get opinions now from anyone?

by John 6/22/2018 2:04:21 PM
If Alito has Janus, do you think that is a good thing?

by Mike 6/22/2018 2:04:55 PM
Okay, heading back in. Returning shortly.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:05:36 PM
Why would a defendant agree to have charges tried separately?

by Kevin 6/22/2018 2:06:44 PM
We have the next opinion. It is from Kagan, it is Ortiz/Dalmazzi v. United States. The decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is affirmed.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:07:38 PM
This is actually a group of three cases, all involving members of the armed forces who were convicted by military courts-martial; their convictions were upheld by military courts of criminal appeals. The service members argue that they should get new appeals because their appeals were decided by judges who had also been confirmed as judges on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, which hears appeals from military commissions. That dual service, the service members say, violates a longstanding rule prohibiting active-duty military officers from holding a second government job that requires presidential nomination and Senate confirmation – sometimes referred to as the “dual-officeholding ban.”

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:07:49 PM
Only dissenters are Alito, joined by Gorsuch. Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor join in full.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:08:29 PM
Here is the opinion in Ortiz v. US. Amy will have our analysis:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1423_bq7c.pdf

by Andrew Hamm 6/22/2018 2:09:00 PM
Court holds first that the court has jurisdiction to review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:09:17 PM
This is a rare case in which a non-government (and non-appointed-by-the-Court) amicus was permitted to participate in oral argument.

by Sarah Harrington 6/22/2018 2:09:22 PM
Thomas’s concurrence is about the original understanding of the public v. private rights distinction as it relates to Article III.

by Kevin Russell 6/22/2018 2:10:06 PM
Court then holds that the simultaneous service on the court of criminal appeals and the CMCR was lawful.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:10:29 PM
Breyer is going to have the Florida v. Georgia decision. That's all I have to say about that.

by Eric Citron 6/22/2018 2:10:49 PM
In a footnote, the court dismisses the two other cases -- Dalmazzi v. US and Cox v. US -- as improvidently granted.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:10:58 PM
Going back in to wait for the next decision. Apparently we are down to one box now. Under normal opinion announcement rules, we could still hear from everyone but Gorsuch.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:12:11 PM
How does the Supreme Court announce their opinion? Is it just a simple “we affirm this decision” or is there more?

by Jacob 6/22/2018 2:12:55 PM
@EricCitron Please share a little bit more about why you think that. And when do you expect it to come out? Thanks.

by bruceritchie 6/22/2018 2:13:31 PM
We have the next (but not last) opinion in WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical. It is by Justice Thomas, and the lower court decision was reversed and remanded.

by Amy Howe 6/22/2018 2:14:45 PM

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Scribble

Live blog of opinions | June 22, 2018 (with First Mondays)

We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released opinions in Carpenter v. United States, Currier v. Virginia, Ortiz v. United States and WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. Guest bloggers from First Mondays joined us from 9 to 9:45 a.m.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award