Scribble

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Scribble

Argument preview: Justices consider availability of punitive damages in maritime unseaworthiness case – Joel Goldstein

Argument preview: The Hobbs Act as ordinary or extraordinary administrative law – Christopher Walker

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

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.

Mar. 2019

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

Mar. 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 March 15, 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

Argument preview: Justices consider availability of punitive damages in maritime unseaworthiness case – Joel Goldstein

Argument preview: The Hobbs Act as ordinary or extraordinary administrative law – Christopher Walker

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe
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 March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
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.
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
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 »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 50

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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	50
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference