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.

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

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
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 April 12 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti and Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton and North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in United States v. Davis and McDonough v. Smith.
On Thursday, the justices met for their April 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this 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
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
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.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- 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 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

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.