Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Casetext.
Also, I would tell you that I am sorry that I am not live blogging from the Court today, except that I am live blogging from the southern part of heaven, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. So I am not all that sorry.
We are only waiting on one more opinion from the October sitting (which should not be confused with arguments, like Frank v. Gaos, that were argued in October but are part of the November sitting). Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice who has not yet written an opinion from the October sitting, so she likely has Gundy v. United States.
There are comments asking about the likelihood of various decisions coming out today, which means it's a good time to insert my usual warnings about how we don't know how many opinions we are getting or which ones.
I was not at the oral argument in Gundy so I can't say much about what the prospect that Sotomayor is writing might mean for the outcome in the case. Hopefully we will know soon. And if not, I'll try to do some research before the next live blog.
Ariane de Vogue of CNN is reporting just one box of opinions waiting to be distributed at the Court today, which means (in all likelihood) a smaller number of opinions.
PS: Application deadline is today!
We have the first opinion, from Justice Breyer in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus. It is unanimous, with Sotomayor concurring.
The decision of the Tenth Circuit is affirmed.
The court holds that a business that only engages in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is generally not a "debt collector" for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the purposes of one limited provision of the act.
This was a case in which a homeowner was alleging that a law firm hired to carry out a foreclosure proceeding outside of court failed to comply with the FDCPA.
Next up is a per curiam opinion in Frank v. Gaos.
Per curiam means unsigned, by the way. The court is sending Frank v. Gaos back to the lower courts for them to address the plaintiffs' legal right to sue in light of the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robbins.
"We are a court of review, not of first view," the opinion says.
Also, the court says that "Nothing in our opinion should be interpreted as expressing a view on any particular resolution" of the question of the legal right to sue, known as "standing."
Frank v. Gaos was a challenge to the use of cy pres awards in class actions, which means that some or all of the proceeds go to charity.
In Spokeo, the court held that "standing" -- the right to sue -- requires an actual injury, even if there is a violation of a statute. And so the question that the Court is asking the lower courts to decide in Frank v Gaos is whether the plaintiffs in the class action have a right to sue.
Justice Thomas dissented from the per curiam opinion. He would reach the merits and reverse.
That appears to be all for today.
Thanks to everyone who joined us today. We don't know for sure, but we'll likely be back again on Tuesday for opinions. Have a great week!
Alright all, we are going to shut this one down. Thank you as always for joining us! Today we'll have our analyses of these two opinions, plus Amy's analysis of today's argument in Flowers v. Mississippi and her preview of next week's Kisor v. Wilkie. Hope to be back with you next week for more opinions!
Submit Event
