Scribble

Live blog of opinions | March 29, 2017

3rd & 7 37yd

Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:44:07 PM

Comment ()
The Court hears oral arguments in two criminal cases today, Turner/Overton v. United States and Honeycutt v. United States.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:45:08 PM

Comment ()
We could also get opinions today in one or more argued cases.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:45:28 PM

Comment ()
This blog's Andrew Hamm has helpfully compiled a list of outstanding cases from October through January. From October, there is only one case left: Manrique v. United States. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only justice who has not yet written for October, so you can do the math.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:46:40 PM

Comment ()
From November, there are three cases left: Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International, Bank of America v. Miami, and Sessions (formerly Lynch) v. Morales-Santana. Two justices have not yet written for this month -- Breyer and Ginsburg -- so we can expect them to be writing one each; pretty much anyone could be writing the third.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:49:10 PM

Comment ()
Lyle did an excellent blog discussion on Moore v. Texas. I miss him. still love the blog though.

by AnticipatingAmy 3/29/2017 1:49:11 PM

Comment ()
in a general sense how long does it take for the Court to deliver an opinion after hearing oral arguments?

by OLDNos 3/29/2017 1:49:33 PM

Comment ()
Any idea when it would be plausible to hear the opinion on Packingham v North Carolina?

by AnonMoose 3/29/2017 1:50:36 PM

Comment ()
For December, we have three justices who haven't written -- Roberts, Alito, and Kagan -- and two cases -- Jennings v. Rodriguez and McCrory v. Harris.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:53:14 PM

Comment ()
any ew news or opinion,on kindred health care case?

by michael stevens 3/29/2017 1:53:47 PM

Comment ()
The five-minute buzzer sounded, and we have one box of opinions.

by Amy Howe 3/29/2017 1:54:50 PM

Comment ()
Are there any exceptions to the rule that each justice gets an opinion from a sitting before anyone gets two?

by Shweetfeet 3/29/2017 1:54:51 PM

Comment ()
Any thoughts or rumors on when Dimaya could come down? (i.e. whether the "residual clause" portion of the crime-of-violence definition of 16b is void for vagueness in light of Scalia's Johnson opinion?)

by Tom 3/29/2017 1:56:03 PM

Comment ()
Amy is getting in line for the opinion(s) now.

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 1:58:38 PM

Comment ()
One decision, in Expressions Hair Design v Schniderman

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:01:51 PM

Comment ()
Roberts has opinion. Unanimous judgment.

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:02:11 PM

Comment ()
Issue is credit card fees; merchants who want to pass them on can impose a surcharge when you use a credit card or offer a discount when you use cash.

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:03:08 PM

Comment ()
NY has banned surcharges

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:03:16 PM

Comment ()
The question is whether ban regulates speech of merchants and if so whether the ban violates First Amendment

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:03:38 PM

Comment ()
The court concludes that the statute does regulate speech, sends case back to 2nd circuit to decide whether it is unconstitutional.

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:04:07 PM

Comment ()
Ruling for the merchants

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:04:12 PM

Comment ()
Ronald Mann will have our analysis in this case. Here is the opinion. www.supremecourt.gov

by Andrew Hamm 3/29/2017 2:04:30 PM

Comment ()
Breyer concurs in judgment; Sotomayor concurs in judgment, joined by Alito.

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:05:02 PM

Comment ()
Is this second Roberts opinion in Jan? (Meaning, among other things, he won't be writing Dimaya)

by BCS 3/29/2017 2:05:52 PM

Comment ()
That is all for today. Thanks for joining us!

by Edith Roberts 3/29/2017 2:07:33 PM

Comment ()
Does this mean next chance for opinions is not until April sitting - i.e., April 18?

by JH 3/29/2017 2:07:52 PM

Comment ()
Is this the first time for a Sotomayor-Alito joint concurrence?

by JC 3/29/2017 2:08:16 PM

Comment ()
Sure would make sense to distribute the opinions in some online format rather than printing them for the press.

by AnticipatingAmy 3/29/2017 2:09:02 PM

Comment ()
Okay, thank you, everybody!

by Andrew Hamm 3/29/2017 2:09:31 PM

Comment ()

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.