Good morning and welcome to the live blog
We are waiting for opinions at 10, before the oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra.
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.
Good morning, everyone! Sorry for the delay, but I was having some tech issues.
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.
Also, for those of you who aren't regulars here, we don't know what opinions we are going to get or how many.
The five-minute buzzer just sounded.
It is a cold, rainy day down here at the Court. There are pretty big crowds outside despite the nasty weather, though.
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.
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.
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).
I'm headed into the press office to wait. Back soon . . .
One box = 1-2 opinions, usually. I depends on the length of the opinions at issue.
It is Cyan v. Beaver County, per Kagan. Unanimous.
Decision below is affirmed.
This is a Goldstein & Russell case, by the way.
This was a Goldstein & Russell case that Tom Goldstein argued this year, so my opinions cannot be trusted but are definitely correct.
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.
And that is all for this morning. I am headed upstairs.
Thank you, everyone -- hope to see you again tomorrow!
Submit Event
