#waitingforLyle

Live blog of opinions | March 27, 2018

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

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

Empirical SCOTUS: To extend or not to extend – Adam Feldman

A "view" from the courtroom: An audience of luminaries for the final argument of the term – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Travel ban seems likely to survive Supreme Court’s review – Amy Howe
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 20 conference on Monday. The justices added two cases to their docket for next term, United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims, consolidated for one hour of argument. The justices also called for the views of the solicitor general in EVE-USA Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.
On Tuesday the justices released their opinions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu and Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
On Monday the justices heard oral argument in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Pereira v. Sessions and Chavez-Meza v. United States.
On Tuesday the justices heard oral argument in Abbott v. Perez and Animal Science Products Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii.
On Friday the justices will meet for their April 27 conference; our "petitions to watch" for that conference will be available soon.
Major Cases
- Trump v. Hawaii
  (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
  Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
- Gill v. Whitford
  (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
- Carpenter v. United States
  Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
  Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirement.
- Hall v. Hall When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.
- Wilson v. Sellers A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
- SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu When the United States Patent and Trademark Office institutes an inter partes review to reconsider an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U. S. C. §§311–319, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute.
- Sessions v. Dimaya 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague.
- Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC Inter partes review -- which authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U. S. C. §§311–319 -- does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
see all this Term’s cases »
Upcoming Petitions
- Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which states that “the principal prosecuting attorney” of a state or locality may apply for an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), allows a principal prosecuting attorney to delegate the task of applying for such an order to a subordinate.
- Quarles v. United States Whether Taylor v. United States’ definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, as two circuits hold; or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure, as the court below and three other circuits hold.
- Trent v. United States Whether the exclusion of testimony on the specific length of the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a cooperating witness violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 60

Cases decided 20

Summary reversals 6

Merits cases granted to date 63

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2018

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
1	2 Orders Opinions	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13 Conference	14
15	16 Orders WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD. V. UNITED STATES (17-530) WESTERNGECO LLC V. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORP. (16-1011)	17 SOUTH DAKOTA V. WAYFAIR (17-494) LAMAR, ARCHER & COFRIN V. APPLING (16-1215) Opinions	18 WASHINGTON V. UNITED STATES (17-269) LAGOS V. UNITED STATES (16-1519)	19	20 Conference	21
22	23 Orders LUCIA V. SEC (17-130) PEREIRA V. SESSIONS (17-459) CHAVEZ-MEZA V. UNITED STATES (17-5639)	24 ABBOTT V. PEREZ (17-586) ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS V. HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. (16-1220) Opinions	25 TRUMP V. HAWAII (17-965)	26	27 Conference	28
29	30 Orders

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at NYU Law

On April 4, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with Justice Albie Sachs, formerly of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, for the launch of the Guarini Institute for Global Legal Studies at NYU School of Law.

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.