Scribble

Live blog of opinions | March 27, 2018

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

Dec. 2018

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 to Supreme Court on military transgender ban – Amy Howe

Symposium: Crosses and constitutional clarity – Lindsay See

Symposium: Cross purposes -- Why a Christian symbol can’t memorialize all war dead – Richard B. Katskee
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 December 7 conference on Monday; the justices added Kisor v. Wilkie to their merits docket for this term. The justices also released their decision in United States v. Stitt on Monday.
The justices will meet next for their January 4 conference. The calendar for the January sitting, which will begin on January 7, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- United States v. Stitt The term "burglary" in the Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation.
- Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service An area is eligible for designation as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 only if it is habitat for the listed species; and the decision by the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior not to exclude an area from critical habitat under 16 U. S. C. §1533(b)(2) is subject to judicial review.
- Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 regardless of the number of employees they have.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; (2) whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on a single decision, published after the event in question, to support its conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and (3) whether the lower court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was without probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.
- Hester v. United States Whether the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey–which held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt–should apply to the imposition of criminal restitution.
- Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Whether public school teachers and coaches retain any First Amendment rights when at work and “in the general presence of” students.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- 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.
- In re Department of Commerce
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 32

Cases decided 3

Summary reversals 0

Merits cases granted to date 57

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

3
Orders
DAWSON V. STEAGER (17-419)
LORENZO V. SEC (17-1077)

4
BIESTEK V. BERRYHILL (17-1184)
HELSINN HEALTHCARE V. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS (17-1229)

5
Supreme Court building closed for National Day of Mourning for George H.W. Bush

6
GAMBLE V. UNITED STATES (17-646)

7
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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.