Three boxes, today, everyone. This suggests that we are getting several opinions and/or they are long.
Okay, going in to wait for opinions. Back soon.
Lots of questions about why the gerrymandering cases might be re-argued next Term. Justice Breyer suggested the possibility at oral argument, indicating it might be nice to hear the Wisconsin, Maryland, and North Carolina cases all at once.
We have the first decision, from Sotomayor. It is Rosales-Mireles v. United States.
The Fifth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
Today the justices reversed. The Court, Sotomayor writes, "holds that such an error will in the ordinary case, as here, seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and thus will warrant relief."
Sotomayor says that the Fifth Circuit's standard is "unduly restrictive."
"A plain Guidelines error that affects a defendant's substantial rights is precisely the type of error that ordinarily warrants relief under Rule 52(b)."
The vote is 7-2. Thomas dissents, joined by Alito.
With Thomas and Alito in dissent this makes it the third time this term where they are the only dissenting justices (also in Marinello and Upper Skagit)
Under the court's *normal* opinion announcement rules, this means that we are not likely to hear from Gorsuch or Kagan today (because the court normally announces opinions in order of reverse seniority).
This will be important to a lot of criminal defendants, although it is limited to cases in which the Guidelines calculation error was plain.
Breyer is up now, with an opinion in Chavez-Mesa v. United States, another sentencing case.
The Tenth Circuit is affirmed. It is 5-3; Gorsuch is recused, Kennedy dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This decision means that if a district court made a pretty obvious mistake calculating a sentencing guideline, and the defendant didn't object, they are still likely to get relief on appeal (if their appellate lawyer identifies the error and complains).
I believe this was the case that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein argued.
The court of appeals in this case held that the district judge's explanation for his decision not to provide an additional reduction was adequate; the Supreme Court today upholds that decision.
It's a short decision (10 pages).
The majority dodges the most important question in the case, which is whether a sentencing Court has to explain its reasoning if it selects a within-Guidelines sentence. Court decides that even if an explanation is required, this particular decision satisfied that obligation.
Kennedy has the next opinion, in Lozman v. Riviera Beach. The decision of the 11thCircuit is vacated and remanded.
Only Thomas dissents from the opinion.
That Lozman guy is on a roll.
Kennedy emphasizes that the issue before the court is a narrow one.
Submit Event
