Live blog of orders and opinions | June 18, 2018 (with First Mondays)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 14 conference and opinions in argued cases. The justices granted certiorari in five cases: Sturgeon v. Frost, Garza v. Idaho, Lorenzo v. SEC, Timbs v. Indiana and Apple v. Pepper. The justices released their decisions in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, Chavez-Meza v. United States, Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
In this case, the justices were considering when errors made in sentencing a defendant under the (advisory) U.S. Sentencing Guidelines should be corrected. The defendant discovered a sentencing error on appeal, but because he hadn’t objected to the mistake in the trial court he had to show that the sentence reflected a “plain error” affecting his “substantial rights.” The 5th Circuit ruled that this meant that the error would have to “shock the conscience.”
-
Here is the opinion in Rosales-Mireles v. US. Evan Lee will have our analysis.
-
This is the case of a meth dealer who was originally sentenced to 135 months in federal prison; after the sentencing guidelines changed, a judge reduced his sentence to 114 months, even though the inmate was now eligible for a sentence as low as 108 months. The question in this case was whether the judge was required to provide an explanation for his decision not to sentence him to a lower sentence and, if so, how detailed that explanation should be.
-
Here's a link to the opinion in Chavez-Meza v. US. Susan Klein will have our analysis:
-
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.
-
In 2006, Fane Lozman was arrested when he got up to speak at a city council meeting. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, arguing that his arrest was retaliation for activities protected by the First Amendment – specifically, filing a lawsuit against the city and his criticism of city officials. A federal appeals court ruled against him, holding that he could not win on his retaliatory arrest claim because there was probable cause for police to arrest him.
-
Here's a link to the opinion in Lozman. Heidi Kitrosser will have our analysis.