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
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
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. -
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.
-
@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! -
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.
-
Here's the opinion in Currier v. Virginia. Lissa Griffin will have our analysis:
-
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.
-
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.”
-
Here is the opinion in Ortiz v. US. Amy will have our analysis: