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

-





-
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."
-
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.
-
Gill v. Whitford is the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, argued in October. It’s a challenge to the state legislative map passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2011; a federal court struck down the plan in 2016 on the ground that it violated the Constitution because the district lines had purposely been drawn to favor the Republican Party over the Democrats.
-
Here's the opinion in Gill v. Whitford. Amy Howe will have our analysis:
-
From Kagan separate opinion:“Partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is “incompatible with democratic principles.” Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 1) (quoting Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 292 (2004) (plurality opinion); alterations omitted). More effectively every day, that practice enables politicians to entrench themselves in power against the people’s will. And only the courts can do anything to remedy the problem, because gerrymanders benefit those who control the political branches.
-
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."
-
Here's the opinion in Benisek v. Lamone. Amy Howe will have our analysis.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.