Live blog of orders and opinions | June 17, 2019
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 13 conference and opinions in four cases: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Gamble v. United States and Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Here's the opinion in Gamble. Amy Howe will have our analysis:
-
Here's the opinion in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. Amy Howe will have our analysis:
-
Alito writes that he would "hold that the Virginia House of Delegates has standing to take this appeal. The Court disagrees for two reasons: first, because the Virginia law does not authorize the House to defend the invalidated redistricting plan on behalf of the Commonwealth, and, second, because the imposition of the District Court's districting plan would not cause the House the kind of harm required by Article III of the Constitution. I am convinced that the second holding is wrong and therefore will not address the first."
-
So much to talk about these last weeks of the Term. Tom Goldstein and I will be discussing these and other cases at a Webinar on June 28th. Please join us! https://info.casetext.com/supreme-court-review-registration/
-
Love hearing the real-time analysis. Once the dust settles, if readers want to hear more about Gamble, the Virginia gerrymandering case, and some of the other key decisions this term, join our Term in Review webinar with Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington on June 28th: https://info.casetext.com/supreme-court-review-registration/
-
Regarding Virginian Uranimum, I find the reason for the split in opinions between Gorsuch et al. and Ginsburg et al. interesting - Gorsuch would disregard the legislature's "underlying motive" in an enacting their ban, while Ginsburg says that has nothing to do with this case. To me, this presages future disagreements about the relevance of motive in other cases, such as President Trump's motives for enacting various immigration policies.
-
Thomas dissenting in Gamble: I write separately to address the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis. In my view, the Court’s typical formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III because it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.
-
And with that, I am going to sign off and get to work. I have three opinions and an order list to cover today. And then I will get to work on a post "reading the tea leaves" to see what we might be able to predict about the remaining opinions. Thanks so much for joining us, and thanks so much to Casetext for making this all possible!
-
All of these interesting lineups and separate writings will make for good term wrap-up discussions. Tom and Sarah will be doing one for Casetext (the blog sponsor): https://info.casetext.com/supreme-court-review-registration/
-
Hi all, time for us to shut down for today. Amy has a lot of work ahead of her today -- covering orders and three of today's opinions. Emily Hammond will cover Virginia Uranium v. Warren. Mark Walsh will have a "view" from the court. And then we will be back on Thursday, thank you!