Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Casetext. We are expecting orders from last week's conference in just a few minutes, followed by opinions (released virtually) at 10 am Eastern.
The Court's Public Information Office reported on Friday that the justices once again held their private conference by phone, and that all of the justices are healthy.
We have a relatively short list of potential grants this week, and only one new relist: Van Buren v. United States, involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
But we do have Thursday opinions to look forward to as well. So we'll be back here again on Thursday morning!
Good morning, all! For the first time in a month or so, we'll have court twice in the same week!
We have one grant, in Van Buren v. United States.
A little more detail: This is a case involving whether it is a federal crime for someone who has permission to access information on a computer to access that information for an improper purpose. The petitioner in the case, Nathan Van Buren, is a Georgia police officer who was convicted of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act after he ran a license plate number for someone while he was the subject of an FBI sting operation.
The Court denied cert in Robinson v. Department of Education, involving whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act waives the government's sovereign immunity from civil lawsuits seeking money damages. Justice Thomas dissents from the denial of review, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.
After relisting the case several times, the Court finally denied review in Rams Football Co. v. St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, involving arbitration and the dispute between the city of St. Louis and the Rams football team after the team moved to Los Angeles.
As Steve Vladeck just noted on Twitter, the Court just denied a motion for divided argument filed by the U.S. solicitor general in a pair of cases involving Ford Motor Co. that will be argued next term. And as Steve notes, there isn't necessarily a rhyme or reason to when the Court denies those motions, other than to make clear that the motions aren't granted every single time.
As we get closer, here's a reminder of how things are working in this all-electronic COVID-19 format. The justices are not taking the bench at all. The opinions are only being released on the Court's website. They are released in reverse seniority (so Justice Kavanaugh would be first if he had an opinion, for example). And they have generally been released every five minutes or so, although I think last time there may have been a snafu that result in the opinions being released basically all at once.
Lots of questions about what Brown v. Barr, the petition that got a grant/vacate/remand today was about. But unfortunately the petition was not online, so I don't know what it was about and because we aren't at the Court I don't have access to it. If anyone else does, please let us know!
It is by Justice Gorsuch. The decision is reversed. The vote count looks splintered, to say the least.
The Court holds that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Ramos had been sentenced to life without parole by a vote of 10-2.
Alito dissents, joined by Roberts and Kagan.
Next up, we have Thryv v. Click to Call Technologies.
Ramos was the longest outstanding case, being argued on Oct. 7, the first day of the term.
The decision is by Justice Ginsburg, and the vote appears to be 7-2.
The decision of the Federal Circuit is vacated and remanded.
Does anyone consider it ironic that the court has at least two cases this term about telephone technology, Click-to-Call and Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, to be argued next month?
We have the next opinion, in Atlantic Richfield v. Christian.
It is by the Chief Justice.
And we have our R- numbers, so I think that is it for merits opinions today.
The Supreme Court holds that it has jurisdiction to review the Montana Supreme Court's decision, and it rules that the Montana Supreme Court erred in holding that the landowners in this case were not "potentially responsible parties" under CERCLA and therefore did not need approval from the EPA to take remedial action.
This is a case in which landowners in Montana sued ARCO in state court in Montana, seeking damages to restore their property that went beyond what ARCO had agreed to do as part of a clean-up plan under CERCLA.
It's a relatively big term for Montana in the Supreme Court, as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, about tax credits for private school tuition scholarships, is still pending.
I'm going to get to work; thanks so much for joining us, and hope to see you back here again at 9:45 Eastern on Thursday morning for more opinions!
I also have to get to work on writing. Looking forward to Thursday!
I'll just note that it seems to have been a glitch-free day in terms of the release and five-minute intervals of opinions, even on my creaky old computer and browser.
That's all for today. One grant and three opinions, with more opinions possible on Thursday. Thanks everyone for joining. We'll be back on Thursday morning at around 9:45 a.m., in anticipation of more opinions at 10 a.m. Please continue to be safe and exercise caution for those around you!
Submit Event
