The Fifth Circuit had held that claims that the district court made a factual error that had never been presented to the district court could never be "plain error." The Supreme Court said basically: "You made that up. The rule doesn't say that."
WE have the first decision. It is in Comcast v. National Association of African-American Owned Media.
It is by Justice Gorsuch, and it appears to be basically unanimous.
The Court holds that a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in contracts has the burden of showing that his race was a but-for cause of his injury, and he continues to bear that burden over the life of the lawsuit.
Ginsburg concurs in part and in the judgment.
Decision is quite short - only about 13 pages. Court sends the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the lawsuit could go forward as long as the plaintiff could show that race was a "motivating factor," to take another look at whether the pleadings were sufficient.
This is in a case brought by Byron Allen, a one-time co-host of "Real People" who went on to build quite a media empire. He attended oral arguments and was greeted by a small army of supporters on the court's plaza afterwards.
This case involves 42 USC 1981 -- a broad statute that prohibits racial discrimination in any contracting. The Ninth Circuit had adopted a very plaintiff-friendly interpretation of this statute. It had required that the plaintiff just had to plead facts plausibly showing that race played "some role" in the contracting decision. That isn't the standard used in other discrimination statutes.
We have the next decision: Allen v. Cooper. It is by Justice Kagan, whose opinion is joined by the Chief Justice, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The fact that the Court's more-liberal Justices joined the pro-defendant opinion in a race-discrimination case is a good sign that the case wasn't very close.
Thomas joins except for the final paragraph.
The Court holds that Congress lacked the authority to abrogate the states' immunity from suit for copyright infringement when it enacted the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990.
Thomas also filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Ginsburg joined.
It appears that they are releasing the opinions the way they are announced on the bench -- e.g., in reverse seniority. So we are not likely to hear from Justice Kavanaugh today; we could hear from Kagan again or from any of the justices more senior to her -- Sotomayor, Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Thomas, the Chief.
The next case is Kahler v. Kansas.
The Court's opinion shows something of a generational divided among the Justices on the left. The two who were there when it announced this controversial line of sovereign immunity precedent -- Breyer and Ginsubrg -- say they would overrule it. The newer Justices on the left -- Kagan and Sotomayor -- seemingly accept it.
The Court holds that the Constitution does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant's ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.
Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor dissent.
This is an interesting lineup in Kahler.
Kagan notes that "Kansas takes account of mental health at both trial and sentencing. It just has not adopted the particular insanity defense Kahler would like. That choice is for Kansas to make."
The core of the disagreement in this case is about history. The dissent believes that it is so well accepted that a defendant must recognize that his crime is morally wrong that the Constitution has adopted that rule. The majority believes that the states have a lot of flexibility in this area and that there isn't one clear rule for the insanity defense that has been adopted historically.
We have a fourth opinion, in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.
It is by Justice Breyer, and the vote is 7-2.
It appears that the per curiam in Davis v. United States has just been posted on the opinions page, too. That did come out with the orders list, but it is the court's normal practice to add per curiam opinions to this page.
A key feature of this case, I think, is that the equitable tolling claim involved established or undisputed facts. In other words, this wasn't a fight about what happened, but instead whether equitable tolling applied in these circumstances. The Court holds that this sort of dispute is a "question of law."
With no opinion summaries in the courtroom, we are missing out on the nuance that often comes from hearing the author give the highlights of his or her opinion. On an opinion day that is also an argument day, one of the reporters who stays down in the press room until all the opinions are out (Amy, to be specific) usually kindly brings me a set of the printed opinions in the courtroom. (Most reporters who stay down for opinions and choose to then come up for argument can make it before the arguments start during the short period when in-person bar admissions are being conducted.)
I have two opinions to cover, so I am going to sign off now. Thanks for joining us. Take care, practice good social distancing (think of your favorite 60+ justice!), and stay well!
I also have to do some writing. So, no nicely printed and folded booklet versions of the opinions that we usually get at the court. There are some trees being saved. We'll do this again, probably next week.
Alright everyone, that's all for today. If more opinion days are announced, or we hear more from the court about how they will be operating under the coronavirus guidelines, we will keep you posted on the blog. Until then, please stay healthy and safe!
Submit Event
