Scribble

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

Government returns in climate change lawsuit (UPDATED) – Amy Howe

SCOTUS Map: October 2018 – Victoria Kwan

Court issues new circuit assignments – 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 additional orders from the October 12 conference on Monday. The court did not grant any new cases.
The justices will meet next for their October 26 conference. The calendar for the November sitting, which will begin on Monday, October 29, is available on the court’s website.
Current Relists
- Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Whether the provisions of the Medicaid Act that require participating states to include in their plans the ability of eligible individuals to obtain services from any “qualified” provider, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), but grant states broad authority to exclude providers for violating state or federal requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p), indicate that Congress clearly and unambiguously intended to create an implied private right of action to challenge a state’s determination that a provider is not “qualified” under the applicable state regulations.
- Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association Inc. v. O’Rourke (1) Whether judicial review of an interpretative Department of Veteran Affairs’ regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act should be foreclosed under 38 U.S.C. § 502 when the Veterans Judicial Reform Act provides the sole avenue for review of the Secretary’s decisions; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision creates a conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision in Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association Inc. and Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. McDonald.
- Fleck v. Wetch (1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and (2) whether Keller v. State Bar of California and Lathrop v. Donohue should be overruled insofar as they permit the state to force the petitioner to join a trade association he opposes as a condition of earning a living in his chosen profession.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
- Timbs v. Indiana
  Whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Apple Inc. v. Pepper
  Whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 10

Cases decided 0

Summary reversals 0

Merits cases granted to date 43

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Oct. 2018

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders WEYERHAEUSER CO. V. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (17-71) MOUNT LEMMON FIRE DISTRICT V. GUIDO (17-587)	2 GUNDY V. UNITED STATES (17-6086) MADISON V. ALABAMA (17-7505)	3 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT (17-647) NEW PRIME INC. V. OLIVEIRA (17-340)	4	5 Conference	6
7	8 Holiday	9 Orders STOKELING V. UNITED STATES (17-5554) UNITED STATES V. STITT (17-765)	10 NIELSEN V. PREAP (16-1363) AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. V. DEVRIES (17-1104)	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders HENRY SCHEIN INC. V. ARCHER & WHITE SALES INC. (17-1272) LAMPS PLUS INC. V. VARELA (17-988)	30 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING V. COUGAR DEN INC. (16-1498) GARZA V. IDAHO (17-1026)	31 JAM V. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. (17-1011) FRANK V. GAOS (17-961)

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Six Connecticut judges remember arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court

Six current Connecticut judges argued before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1981 and 1991. Their recollections of those arguments – prepared by Judge Jon Blue of the Connecticut Superior Court for the annual Connecticut Judges Institute – present a portrait of the justices at work in an earlier era. Judge Julia DiCocco Dewey argued before the court […]

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.