Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our first live blog in quite a while. We are expecting orders from last week's conference at 9:30 am, followed by one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 am.
As you probably know, the justices granted review in the travel ban case last Friday, so it's not clear whether we will get additional grants today. Assuming the travel ban case is argued in April, then the April calendar is full, so anything granted from here on out would almost certainly be argued in October.
Here's the official word from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on the shutdown:
Despite a government shutdown, the federal Judiciary will remain open and can continue operations for approximately three weeks, through February 9, by using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation.
Hard to say what happens after that.
Headed in for orders now.
@BreyersEraser: I think someone (probably Breyer) is writing a dissent from the denial, personally.
We have one new grant today, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Here's what John Elwood said about the case in his Relist Watch a few weeks ago: "Next up are Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 17-71, and Markle Interests, LLC. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 17-74, which involve the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to preserve the improbably named “dusky gopher frog,” which now makes its home in a single Mississippi county. The regulated parties characterize the issue as involving whether the government can designate for Endangered Species Act protection land that is “neither habitat” for that species “nor essential to species conservation.” The case drew noteworthy dissents from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and from denial of rehearing en banc by a close vote. As an aside, the petitioners in these cases had to file an environmental impact statement because of rampant deforestation caused by the filing of 13 amicus briefs supporting them."
There are no summary opinions today, nor any dissents from the denial of review or statements respecting the denial.
Here's a link to the order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012218zor_3314.pdf
There are 2 calls for the views of the U.S. solicitor general, in 17-423, Sterba v. PNC Bank (Alito recused), and in 17-528, Strang v. Ford Motor Co.
@oxwof: I think we tend to do that in waves, after there have been a lot of people confusing the blog for the Court -- which mostly happens when the justices issue a high-profile opinion.
@BreyersEraser: Others may disagree, but I don't think so. The first question involves Arizona's capital sentencing scheme, while the second question is the constitutionality of the death penalty more broadly. And there don't seem to be the votes to grant on the second.
In response to Alex's question about which opinions we might get: I think it's pretty hard to predict what we will get. I think it is easier to predict which cases we won't get: Anything from January, along with Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christie v. NCAA, Carpenter v. US, Gill v. Whitford, and Epic Systems v. Lewis.
@NathanCurtiss: The petition in Hargan v. Garza, asking to have the D.C. Circuit's decision in the case of the pregnant teenager who wanted (and eventually received) an abortion vacated and to have the lawyers sanctioned, has only been considered at two conferences, which isn't that surprising given the issues involved and how high-profile the case is.
@Alex: I think we are likely to get something that is unanimous (or close thereto) from one of the sittings in October/November/December, but hard to say much more than that.
@AdamB: I think Wesby could take a while to write because it's so fact-bound, but Murphy was one that jumped out at me as a potential decision for today. It seems like a case in which everyone will coalesce around one rule, even if there was not a consensus at the oral argument.
Two boxes. The excitement in the press room is palpable. (I am not being sarcastic here.)
Readers: I'm trying this out for the first time, but as with Ed's question below, we can take questions through Twitter @scotusblog.
@AdamB: Agree. I have a vague recollection that Class v. US was one of my predictions long ago, when we got our first (and only) opinion, in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago.
Headed in . . . see you in a second.
We have the first opinion of the day, in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense.
It is by Sotomayor but read by Roberts, because apparently she is not here.
Question before the Court is what are the "waters of the United States." Court rules that challenges to the "waters of the United States" rule, defined by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, must be filed in federal district courts, rather than in the federal courts of appeals.
We are expecting at least one more.
Here is a link to the opinion in NAM v. DOD. Miriam Seifter will have our analysis: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-299_8nk0.pdf
Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
We have our second opinion, in Artis v. DC. It is by Ginsburg, but it is not unanimous.
To the contrary, it is 5-4; Gorsuch dissents, in an opinion that is almost as long as the majority.
Submit Event
