Good morning and welcome to our first live blog on our newly redesigned website!
Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog, sponsored by Casetext.
The blog's new design is so exciting. A huge congratulations to everyone involved in making it happen, especially Kal Golde and Katie Bart, who spearheaded it.
As an independent contractor and old person, I gave important feedback like "looks really terrific" and "I love it."
Good morning, all! Let me add my kudos on the new look of SCOTUSblog.
Good morning from a cold and cloudy downtown D.C. Hoping for snow later today, but we may get a flurry of SCOTUS action regardless.
Potentially big day at the (virtual) court this morning, with orders at 9:30. We could hear about any number of important cases, including what I think of as the Trump docket (Twitter & emoluments clauses), Mississippi abortion, Calvary Chapel, Sheldon Silver's case, and Texas v. California.
One of my other news outlets recently launched a redesign of its website that was two years in the making.
And then opinions in argued cases at 10 am, which could be, well -- who knows?
I will add that we are, of course, also still waiting on the court's ruling in Trump v. Vance, the now-former president's effort to block the Manhattan district attorney's grand jury subpoena for his financial records. That case recently celebrated its three-month anniversary of being fully briefed.
As we prepare for orders, I will ask whether any other participants are still thinking about last week's inauguration events. As a SCOTUS reporter, I always am looking for shots (or views, when I have been there in person) of the justices. So I was a bit surprised about the absences of Justices Thomas, Breyer, and Alito.
Trump v. Vance was a stay application, so theoretically they could act on it at any time, without needing to wait on an order list. On the other hand, they could just fold it in with a lot of other stuff . . .
My sense is the court has been perfectly happy staying low-key right around now.
There are still a couple of cases left that have not yet been decided from the October sitting; my best guess would be one of those or one of the more -- shall we say -- straightforward ones from November, like Salinas v. US Railroad Retirement Board.
Okay, we're almost there for orders. Can't wait to see what they have for us!
There do not appear to be any new grants today.
The Trump emoluments cases are granted, vacated and sent back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss as moot (Munsingwear vacatur).
Public-employee unions will be breathing a sigh of relief as the court denied several petitions that follow up on the Janus decision from a few terms ago with non-union members seeking to recover agency fees collected over the years.
The court denies review in Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, the case of the Nevada church challenging COVID-19 restrictions.
The Court denies review in the case of Sheldon Silver, over a dissent by Justice Gorsuch that is joined by Justice Thomas.
The court sends the case of Ruben Gutierriez, a Texas death-row inmate, back to the lower courts for them to consider his claims about the presence of a spiritual adviser in the execution chamber in light of the district court's November finding that having a spiritual adviser would not pose a security threat.
As Amy noted, the court declined to review two lawsuits that alleged Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments clauses. (Lower courts had ruled against Trump, and Trump, before he left office, had asked the justices to review those rulings). SCOTUS sends the cases back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss the cases because they are now moot, under an obscure doctrine known as the "Munsingwear doctrine."
Wow, lots of cases in which they did not act today. The justices do not have another regularly scheduled conference until February 19, so to the extent that they are waiting to see how some of these policies and regulations shake out in the new administration, that does give them some breathing room. The electronic docket for these cases may not update for a couple of days.
Mark, when do you think we will get Trump v. Vance? Friday night around 7 pm?
My theory on the court wanting to lay low remains to be tested by today's opinion announcements, which begin in 10 minutes.
I have two last tidbits regarding the justices and inaugural ceremonies as we await the top of the hour. The first comes from the recent CNN documentary, "Jimmy Carter: Rock and Roll President," which is excellent. I was struck by a scene when Chief Justice Warren Burger administered the oath to Carter in January 1977. After the oath, it was Burger himself who introduced "President Jimmy Carter" to the masses. I don't think any chief justice has done that since then, including Burger. Now that task is handled by one of the members of Congress who heads the Joint Inaugural Committee.
Opinions coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
We have the first opinion. Henry Schein v. Archer and White Sales is dismissed as improvidently granted.
And that's all for today.
The court is laying even lower than I thought possible.
Well, Mark's "laying low" prediction was extraordinarily prescient.
It was an arbitration case.
Henry Schein was a return to the court of a case involving arbitration agreements, with the product at issue being dental equipment. I gave a copy of the court's 2019 decision to my dentist.
I tried to publish the comment of the person who said the correct phrase is "lying low." I don't think it published for some reason, but your point is good taken.
Thanks so much for joining us today! I'm off to write about the (mostly non-) orders. Stay well, and we'll see you back here in February . . . hopefully we will not still be waiting on Trump v. Vance then!
Thanks Amy & Mark! And thanks to everyone for the great questions.
Submit Event
