Scribble

Live blog of opinions | March 20, 2018

This live blog features discussion of the one case decided on this day: Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund.

Feb. 2019

3rd & 7 37yd

Good morning and welcome to the live blog

by Andrew Hamm 3/20/2018 1:47:25 PM
We are waiting for opinions at 10, before the oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra.

by Edith Roberts 3/20/2018 1:48:19 PM
After opinions at 10am, the court will have oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law requiring certain disclosures.

by Andrew Hamm 3/20/2018 1:48:53 PM
Box count, Edith?

by beggin_4_kagan 3/20/2018 1:49:02 PM
Amy's preview in NIFLA is available at this link:
Argument analysis: Legal questions, practical concerns at play in post-divorce life insurance case - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblogWhen Mark Sveen died in 2011, his life insurance policy still named his ex-wife, Kaye Melin, as the beneficiary – even though the couple had divorced four years before. Nothing in the Minnesota couple’s divorce settlement (which divided up, among other things, the all-terrain-vehicle and the snowmob

by Andrew Hamm 3/20/2018 1:49:26 PM
When is the tribal immunity case scheduled to be heard?

by tysonbenson 3/20/2018 1:50:01 PM
Good morning, everyone! Sorry for the delay, but I was having some tech issues.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:50:43 PM
I'm looking at the remaining cases in the October sitting and trying to speculate about who will be writing those. Is it generally the case that the Chief tries to make sure that the Justices write an equal amount of majority opinions per sitting? So if there's three cases left from October, and 3/4 Justices who haven't written an opinion from that sitting, can we infer that those Justices will likely have the remaining opinions?

by Bob Loblaw 3/20/2018 1:50:52 PM
That’s the Sveen life insurance case

by Mark Schmidt 3/20/2018 1:51:07 PM
No boxes yet. For those of you who aren't regulars here, the number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of decisions we'll get. It's not perfect (for example, if an opinion is very long or very short), but it's what we have.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:52:38 PM
Hoping for the Murphy v. NCAA opinion today. Legalized sports betting would make things.... interesting

by Ramsey 3/20/2018 1:54:15 PM
Masterpiece Cakeshop decided today!*
(*Case will actually not be decided today, in all likelihood.)

by DavidW 3/20/2018 1:54:26 PM
Also, for those of you who aren't regulars here, we don't know what opinions we are going to get or how many.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:54:58 PM
The five-minute buzzer just sounded.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:55:21 PM
It is a cold, rainy day down here at the Court. There are pretty big crowds outside despite the nasty weather, though.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:56:11 PM
One box. I will wait for opinions downstairs this morning and then head up for the argument in the NIFLA case as soon as they are done releasing opinions.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:56:41 PM
Hi All -- looking forward to the opinions. I agree with those that it would be a cute coincidence to get the NJ Sports Betting case in the midst of March Madness, but -- as always -- there's very little chance of predicting what comes out when this time of year.

by Eric Citron 3/20/2018 1:56:49 PM
Right now I am feeling pretty sorry for the folks who were outside all night standing in line waiting to get into the argument (or, in many cases, waiting in line so that someone else could get into the argument).

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:57:25 PM
Hi all! I'm new here. We are waiting until 10am for the opinions to be heard?

by Brooke 3/20/2018 1:57:30 PM
I'm headed into the press office to wait. Back soon . . .

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 1:57:53 PM
Are oral arguments for NIFLA going to be live streamed anywhere?

by TrishKalis 3/20/2018 1:58:27 PM
Only one opinion today?

by Evan 3/20/2018 1:59:31 PM
What time is Becerra being argued?

by Scotus 3/20/2018 1:59:43 PM
One box = 1-2 opinions, usually. I depends on the length of the opinions at issue.

by Eric Citron 3/20/2018 2:00:01 PM
No oral argument streaming in federal courts

by Vseved 3/20/2018 2:00:12 PM
It is Cyan v. Beaver County, per Kagan. Unanimous.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 2:01:13 PM
Decision below is affirmed.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 2:01:35 PM
This is a Goldstein & Russell case, by the way.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 2:01:46 PM
This was a Goldstein & Russell case that Tom Goldstein argued this year, so my opinions cannot be trusted but are definitely correct.

by Eric Citron 3/20/2018 2:01:55 PM
Case, according to Kagan opinion, presents two questions about the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. First is whether SLUSA strips state courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933. Second is whether, even if not, SLUSA empowered defendants to remove such actions from state to federal court. We answer both questions no, says the Court.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 2:03:06 PM
Here is a link to the opinion in Cyan. Ronald Mann will have our analysis:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1439_8njq.pdf

by Andrew Hamm 3/20/2018 2:03:21 PM
And that is all for this morning. I am headed upstairs.

by Amy Howe 3/20/2018 2:03:27 PM
Exciting!

by Eric Citron 3/20/2018 2:04:13 PM
Opinions tomorrow too?

by Vseved 3/20/2018 2:07:18 PM
Any more opinions for today or is it ok to log off?

by Brooke 3/20/2018 2:10:45 PM
Thank you, everyone -- hope to see you again tomorrow!

by Andrew Hamm 3/20/2018 2:11:36 PM

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
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 Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
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
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

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.