Live blog of orders and opinions | January 22, 2018
This live blog features discussion of the three cases decided on this day: National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, Artis v. District of Columbia and District of Columbia v. Wesby. The court also granted its first case for next term: Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Fish & Wildlife Service.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
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 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."
-
Is there any predictions which can be made as the the case or cases which will be coming out this morning? Due to the large lapse in time between the first argued opinion and the one(s) today can we expect one or more concurring/dissenting opinions? Or is there nothing to read into?
-
@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.
-
@Spokeo?: Spokeo lost in the Ninth Circuit on remand, so it came back to the Court. Here is a story by Bloomberg's Perry Cooper, who covers class actions, on the Ninth Circuit's decision: www.bna.com
-
@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.
-
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.