Scribble

Live blog of opinions | March 27, 2018

This live blog features discussion of the one case decided on this day: Hall v. Hall.

Feb. 2019

3rd & 7 37yd

Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our special-edition live blog.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:42:39 PM
We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases today. As is almost always the case, we don't know which opinions we are getting, or how many.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:44:15 PM
Good morning! Could the unusual timing of the announcement that there would be opinions today portend a major ruling?

by oxwof 3/27/2018 1:44:20 PM
Last night I put a post up on my blog reading the tea leaves, so to speak -- trying to figure out which justices might be writing which opinion. It's here:
Reading the tea leaves – March 26 edition
Amy HoweWith the cherry blossoms (sort of) getting ready to bloom, and the Supreme Court slated to issue opinions tomorrow, it’s time for another non-botanical pastime in Washington and beyond: Reading the tea leaves to try to predict which justices might be writing the remaining opinions on the court’s merits docket. Unfortunately, it’s too early to... Read More
.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:46:20 PM
But the TLDR is that it's really too soon to tell for most of the months so far. There's one month (November) where we are only waiting on one opinion, but because there are only six cases that sitting it's impossible to say who might be writing.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:47:11 PM
Do you think the Court may want to release Gill before Benisek?

by Paul 3/27/2018 1:47:16 PM
Has an opinion ever been mentioned in oral argument the same morning it came out?

by Gabriel 3/27/2018 1:51:54 PM
Good day to overturn sports betting ban so everyone can bet on the final four

by Vseved 3/27/2018 1:51:56 PM
1. Does the court ever hold back opinions once they're finished to release them at a specific time in the future? 2. For example let's say "Christie v. NCAA" was decided/written months ago, but they release it today to coincide with the "Final Four".

by Ricky 3/27/2018 1:52:40 PM
One box today, folks. For those of you who aren't regulars here, the number of boxes is a *rough* proxy for the number of opinions that we might expect.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:55:16 PM
Five-minute buzzer just sounded.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:55:23 PM
Has it happened that a decision is announced in a case argued by someone who is subsequently arguing in another case the same day as the first opinion is issued?

by courtwatcher 3/27/2018 1:55:42 PM
With Nebraska not making it into the NCAA tourney this year, who do you think Justice Thomas picked to win it all?

by Josh Segal 3/27/2018 1:57:04 PM
Any idea what's taking so long for "Wilson v. Sellers" (November) to be decided?

by Ricky 3/27/2018 1:57:43 PM
Headed in to wait for opinion(s). Back soon.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 1:58:25 PM
We have the first and only opinion in Hall v. Hall. It is by the Chief Justice, and it is reversed and remanded.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:01:23 PM
The Court holds that, when one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 is finally decided, that decision gives the losing part the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:02:11 PM
This was a messy family dispute over property and money in the Virgin Islands.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:02:28 PM
It is unanimous.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:02:38 PM
Presumably you mean that the Court below is reversed and remanded, rather than the CJ's opinion....

by Ilanin 3/27/2018 2:02:49 PM
Here's the court's opinion in Hall v. Hall. Howard Wasserman will have our analysis:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1150_3ebh.pdf

by Andrew Hamm 3/27/2018 2:03:23 PM
Wasn't Hall argued like 3 weeks ago?

by Nathan Curtiss 3/27/2018 2:04:07 PM
The Court's opinion concludes that the "normal rule is that a final 'decision' confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal. That rule provides clear guidance to litigants. Creating exceptions to such a critical step in litigation should not be undertaken lightly."

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:04:27 PM
More: "If, as Samuel fears, our holding in his case were to give rise to practical problems for district courts and litigants, the appropriate Federal Rules Advisory Committees would certainly remain free to take the matter up and recommend revisions accordingly."

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:05:17 PM
Last snippet: "Rule 42(a) did not purport to alter the settled understanding of the consequences of consolidation. That understanding makes clear that when one of several consolidated cases is finally decided, a disappointed litigant is free to seek review of that decision in the court of appeals."

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:06:28 PM
As I think I mentioned earlier, this is the only decision for today.

by Amy Howe 3/27/2018 2:06:49 PM
Question? In regards to the travel ban oral argument happening on the last day of court term, I have been hearing how some senators and or other officials calling on the chief justice Roberts for the audio recording to be released that day after the oral argument. Since this is considered to be one of the biggest cases this term, do you think the justices will agree and probably release it afterwards.

by al 3/27/2018 2:07:56 PM
Are we getting any orders today?

by Conor 3/27/2018 2:09:07 PM
So did Hall win?

by Eric 3/27/2018 2:09:36 PM
There's a late breaking development on Wilson v Sellers in January that may have shaken things up. The GA supreme court issued some form of opinion.

www.scotusblog.com

by JC 3/27/2018 2:10:13 PM
Am I right in thinking that it's a bit odd that the Chief gave himself the opinion in such a dry procedural case?

by Ilanin 3/27/2018 2:11:28 PM
Sorry if I missed it, but will there be opinion(s) tomorrow?

by AS 3/27/2018 2:12:58 PM
Plurality of Court is Catholic so Loyola of Chicago logical pick for some justices.

by Vseved 3/27/2018 2:14:00 PM
Amy, Justice Alito devoted a rather lengthy portion of his opinion in Jennings responding to the dissenting opinion. This got me thinking - what does it say when a majority opinion devotes an entire section to respond to dissenting arguments? Sometimes majority opinions will do so merely in a footnote; others don't even acknowledge the dissent. Does a response to a dissent in the main body of a majority opinion impliedly acknowledge the relative force of the opposing justice's arguments?

by JD for the Win 3/27/2018 2:14:52 PM
I saw that Kennedy recused himself from a case that he had some involvement in when he was on the Ninth Circuit (!). That has to set some sort of record, no?

by Sco 3/27/2018 2:16:31 PM
Well have a Good Friday/ Passover and a happy warm Easter.

by Vseved 3/27/2018 2:16:45 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.