Live blog of orders and opinions | April 1, 2019
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the March 29 conference (which included a grant in Kansas v. Glover) and its decisions in Bucklew v. Precythe and Biestek v. Berryhill. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
A couple of high-profile cases have been kicking around the relists for several weeks now, including the challenge to the Indiana law barring abortions based on (among other things) the sex or disability of the fetus, and requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated.
-
As a reminder before opinions come: SCOTUSblog is hiring. Here's the job description for the blog manager position:
SCOTUSblog is hiring - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblogThe blog is beginning the hiring process for a new blog manager. The blog manager’s job includes, but is not limited to: Coordinating case coverage, online symposia and additional blog content; Assisting editor with editing process, particularly for blog’s style guidelines; Maintaining pu -
Here's a link to the opinion in Bucklew. Amy will have our analysis:
-
Here's a link to the opinion in Biestek v. Berryhill. David Super will have our analysis:
-
This is a case about Social Security disability benefits. The court holds that a vocational expert's refusal to provide private market-survey data about the other kinds of work that Biestek could still perform, upon the request of an applicant for benefits does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as "substantial evidence."
-
I am going to sign off now. To the reader who asked about the Rhode Island letter in the Bladensburg cross case, I am working on it and hopefully will have more information by the time we are back here again. The justices are not in session next week. They have a conference on April 12; we would expect orders from that conference on April 15 (tax day!), followed by the possibility of opinions again on April 16 and/or 17. thanks so much for joining us, and have a good week.
-
One of the things I like about cases like Biestek, where there's not a clear partisan/political valence, is that you get to see that the Justices' jurisprudence isn't purely political. the only reason we think Ginsburg and Gorsuch teaming up is weird is because we're so convinced that they usually rule on things for political reasons, but that's not the case here.
-
Hi all -- I'm going to close us down for today. Thank you for being with us! In addition to covering today's orders and opinions, this week we will be running an online symposium on the census case, Department of Commerce v. New York. The justices are off for two weeks now. I think our next opinion day will be Tuesday, April 16. Thanks again!