It's not that useful in terms of information right now, but we have two boxes. Thanks to Melissa Quinn of the Washington Examiner for the update.
Normally we try to gauge how many opinions we might be getting based on the number of boxes of opinions waiting to be distributed in the Public Information Office, but today we kind of know more or less how many we're getting.
I suppose it does suggest that the opinions we are getting are not super-long. (Or that some of them are quite short.)
Five-minute buzzer just sounded.
Here in the press room we're also having a very erudite discussion about Paul Manafort. Okay, I'm headed in to wait for opinions. If Alito has Mitchell, that would likely be our first opinion, because opinions are announced in order of reverse seniority.
We have our first opinion, and it is Mitchell v. Wisconsin, from Alito.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision is vacated and remanded.
This was the challenge to a blood test of an unconscious drunk driving suspect.
The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule "almost always permits a blood test without a warrant."
"When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk-driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test."
When a driver is unconscious, Alito concludes, "the general rule is that a warrant is not needed."
Justice Alito's opinion is only for four Justices, it appears, because Justice Thomas would enact a per se rule that all draws are permissible in these circumstances.
Thomas's opinion is actually broader than the plurality, so the plurality rule is going to control here.
Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh join Alito's opinion; Thomas concurs in the judgment.
Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Kagan. Gorsuch dissents.
Justice Sotomayor in dissent would hold that "there is no categorical exigency exception for blood draws, although exigent circumstances might justify a warrantless blood draw on the facts of a particular case."
Gorsuch says he would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
The principal dissent criticizes the majority for relying on "exigent circumstances" because Wisconsin did not argue that exigent circumstances were present in this case.
The Chief Justice has the next opinion, in the partisan gerrymandering cases, which are decided together.
The court holds that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
The court's ruling means that courts will not have a role to play in reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims.
It is 5-4. Kagan dissents, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Submit Event
