Scribble

Editor's Note :

Scribble

Empirical SCOTUS: The hottest bench in town – Adam Feldman

Argument preview: Justices to consider competency in capital cases – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices face nondelegation challenge to federal sex-offender registration law – Mila Sohoni

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

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.

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

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: September 2018

Sept. 2018

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

Holiday

Conference

Orders

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

Empirical SCOTUS: The hottest bench in town – Adam Feldman

Argument preview: Justices to consider competency in capital cases – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices face nondelegation challenge to federal sex-offender registration law – Mila Sohoni
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
On Monday, the justices met for their September 24 conference. We expect orders from this conference on Thursday. The October 2018 term will begin on Monday, October 1. The calendar for the October sitting is available on the court's website.
Major Cases
- Trump v. Hawaii
  The president has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States; respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 violates the establishment clause.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc.
  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois -- which held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the state -- are overruled.
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  The state of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., which concluded otherwise, is overruled.
- Gill v. Whitford
  Plaintiffs -- Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury -- have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
- Carpenter v. United States
  The government’s acquisition of Timothy Carpenter’s cell-site records from his wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search; the government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring those records.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration violated the free exercise clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 0

Cases decided 0

Summary reversals 0

Merits cases granted to date 37

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Calendar: September 2018
Full Calendar Submit Event

Sept. 2018

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2

3
Holiday

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
Conference

25

26

27
Orders

28

29

30
- Orders/Opinions
- Arguments
- Conferences
- Events
- Holidays
- Multiple

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

Six Connecticut judges remember arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court

Six current Connecticut judges argued before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1981 and 1991. Their recollections of those arguments – prepared by Judge Jon Blue of the Connecticut Superior Court for the annual Connecticut Judges Institute – present a portrait of the justices at work in an earlier era. Judge Julia DiCocco Dewey argued before the court […]

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	0
Cases decided	0
Summary reversals	0
Merits cases granted to date	37

24
Conference