The court rules that Lozman does not need to prove the absence of probable cause to maintain a retaliatory arrest claim. "On facts like these," Kennedy writes, the Court's decision in Mount Healthy Bd. of Education v. Doyle "provides the correct standard for assessing a retaliatory arrest claim. The Court need not, and does not, address the elements required to prove a retaliatory arrest claim in other contexts."
Court says "this is not to say, of course, that Lozman is ultimately entitled to relief or even a new trial."
Going back in for next one.
The Lozman decision turns in significant part on the fact that the City Council folks directly ordered Lozman’s arrest, which distinguishes it from the more common case of a police officer making an arrest on the street,.
We have Gill, from the Chief Justices.
There's an interesting parallel between Lozman and Masterpiece Cakes: in both instances, the government's motives were found to have tainted enforcement actions. Normally, the Court doesn't care that much about motives if the government's law enforcement actions are supported by probable cause. Possible cracks in the armor here.
Court says the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
The court sends the case back for further proceedings, "in the course of which those plaintiffs may attempt to demonstrate standing in accord with the analysis in this opinion."
The vote is as follows: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan join all; Kagan concurs (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor); Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch.
Court says that the plaintiffs' claims rest on the idea that their votes have been diluted -- a harm from "the particular composition of the voter's own district," the court says.
Providing a remedy, the court says, doesn't "necessarily require restructuring all of the State's legislative districts."
This decision is essentially a punt. We'll have to review the opinion in detail, but it basically says that these plaintiffs can't get a decision yet, without saying much more for the future.
The court explains that it would normally order the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, but this "is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unreslved." So the court sends the case back to the district court to give the plaintiffs a chance to show that they themselves have suffered "concrete and particularized injuries."
And we have a per curiam (unsigned) in Maryland gerrymandering, Benisek v. Lamone.
The court rules that the district court's decision denying a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs was not an abuse of discretion. (Sorry for the double negatives.)
TO put it more simply, no ruling on the merits in this one either.
The Court dodges the hard questions in the case by saying essentially that even assuming there is a likelihood of success on the merits, the other criteria for a preliminary injunction were not met.
The plaintiffs had asked the district court to stop MD officials from holding elections under the 2011 map, but the district court had declined to do so.
The court here points out that the plaintiffs didn't ask for an injunction until some time after the 2011 map was adopted.
This is a brief, 5 page opinion. The court also notes that the district court's decision to deny an injunction was supported by the public's interest in orderly elections, and that the Court had already announced that it would review Gill, the Wisconsin case. So it the district court's decision not to grant an injunction is not an "abuse of discretion."
The Court is now done for the day. No word as to whether we will be back again on THursday yet.
So they didn't order reargument in the partisan gerrymandering cases, but I do think this is a strong pair of candidates for "most unsatisfying outcome" of the term, for many people.
Okay, I am going to get to work now on my coverage of the gerrymandering cases. Hopefully others will stick around to answer your questions; will let you know as soon as I hear anything about opinions later this week.
Three boxes, five(ish) opinions -- infinite glory?
Okay, we will be back here on Thursday -- it is official. I'm going to back to work; see you here on Thursday morning!
It’s interesting that the Chief’s opinion in Gill repeatedly refers to how the Court’s precedents have dealt with certain issues (e.g., how to conceive of the relevant injury to voters) by referring to the Court’s decisions “to date.” Seemingly leaves open (and conspicuously so) the possibility for change in that precedent. I have a hard time believing the Chief himself was anxious to emphasize that fact. I bet it was added at someone’s (Kennedy’s?) request.
Okay, we are going to shut down the live blog for today. We will be back on Thursday for more opinions.
In terms of today's coverage, I'm about to post First Mondays. Then we are going to have Amy's coverage of orders and partisan gerrymandering, Mark Walsh with a "view" from the courtroom, and analysis from three law professors on Rosales-Mireles, Chavez-Meza, and Lozman. We will also begin an online symposium on partisan gerrymandering.
Thank you to everyone who joined us this morning!
Submit Event
