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

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 12 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti and Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton and North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in United States v. Davis and McDonough v. Smith.
On Thursday, the justices met for their April 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
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.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- 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 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme 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.