Good morning from the Court's press room. Big crowd outside; is there that much interest in cost calculations under the Clean Air Act? Or is it just tour time?
Good morning everyone! Welcome to the live blog.
All of the October cases have now been decided. We are waiting on three from the November sitting, and they are big ones: Zivotofsky v Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case; the Alabama redistricting cases, Comptroller v. Wynne, the constitutional tax case. There is a fourth, Johnson v. US, but that has been set for re-argument in April.
Young v. UPS. Breyer has the opinion.
It is not unanimous. The decision of the Fourth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
Alito concurs in the judgment; Scalia dissents, joined by kennedy and Thomas, and Kennedy separately dissents.
The Court holds that an individual pregnant worker who seeks to show disparate treatment through indirect evidence may do so through the application of the McDonnell Douglas framework.
The Court appears to reject both sides' arguments about the meaning of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
There will be more opinions.
The Court chooses an interpretation of its own. The plaintiff, a pregnant woman, under the Court's approach will be required to show that she belongs to the protected class, that she sought accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that it did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work.
The Court issues opinions in order of reverse seniority, so we will not get opinions from Kagan, Sotomayor, or Alito today. But that leaves a wealth of possibilities still.
Waiting on second opinion now.
Here it is. Final one as well.
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, also by Breyer.
The district court is vacated and remanded.
The decision of the Court is by a vote of 5-4.
Justice Scalia dissents, joined by the Chief and Thomas and Alito; Thomas files his own dissenting opinion.
Here's the start of the holding: The district court's analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim referring to the state as a whole rather than district by district was legally erroneous.
The district court also did not properly calculate predominance in its alternative holding that race was not the predominating factor in the creation of any of the challenged districts.
The district court and the legislature both asked the wrong question w/r/to narrow tailoring: they asked how to retain the present minority percentages in majority-minority districts rather than how to preserve existing minority percentages in order to maintain the minorities' ability to elect a candidate of their choice.
Breyer is still reading from his opinion.
Okay, that's all we have for now. But we have a lot of content coming up soon. Kali Borkoski will have more on the appearance by Justices Breyer and Kennedy at the House on Monday, along with an analysis of yesterday's B&B Hardware decision, and reports on today's opinions and oral arguments. Thanks for joining us; we'll see you next week!