Scribble

Scribble

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky

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

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

May 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of May 23, 2019

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

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 released orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their May 23 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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 Decisions
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme 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	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

30
Conference