Live blog of orders and opinions - Monday, June 22, 2020
We live-blogged on Monday, June 22, as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 18 conference and an opinion in Liu v. SEC. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: making litigation more efficient with A.I. and machine learning technology.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Any idea on the chances the Court decides to grant cert to "American Institute for International Steel v. CBP" challenging POTUS use of 232 national security tariffs? How swayed are judges by current events (Commerce launched 3 more dubious 232 investigations in the past weeks - mobile cranes, transformers made from grain oriented electric steel, vanadium)
-
Here is a list of the 15 remaining decisions: http://amylhowe.com/2020/06/22/and-then-there-were-15-the-terms-remaining-decisions/
-
We did a FAQs for opinions and orders last week. If we aren't answering your question, it may also be answered here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions-4/
-
Amy, while we're waiting, curious for your take on this: I don't think NMG's maj. op. in Bostock was the original maj. op. His opinion makes only gestural efforts to rebut SA's and BMK's dissents, and SA's dissent is so long, repetitive, and responsive to many arguments not even discussed by NMG, that it feels like it was significantly rewritten halfway through. Thoughts?
-
What is the rationale for keeping secret the names of the cases that will get decided until the opinion is actually released? I get that this may have made sense 100 years ago, but most of government releases agendas ahead of time so we know what is coming down the pike.
-
Do we think there’s an informal communication process with the clerks and chambers to keep each other abreast on when drafts are likely to be done or take a long time? I’m trying to imagine word getting from an Alito clerk to a Gorsuch clerk saying something like ‘this dissent is gonna be long, you have time to work on something else today while you’re waiting’? I’m thinking especially for those who do like to respond to questions raised by the dissents in their footnotes.
-
As I read the CJ’s DACA opinion, there is nothing in it preventing Judge Hanen from striking down DACA in the pending case in his court brought by Texas and others. Roberts does not hold that DACA is legal (as Thomas points out), merely that more thought must be given by DHS.to the consequences of ending the program. Seems to me Judge Hanen, who has already found Texas has a likelihood of success, can still strike it down, forcing Roberts to confront the issue he ducked last week. Thoughts?