First opinion is Mellouli v. Lynch.
Eighth Circuit is reversed. RBG has opinion.
Thomas dissents, joined by Alito.
Court holds that Mellouli's Kansas conviction for concealing unnamed pills in his sock does not trigger removal under immigration law.
If the first decision is from Ginsburg, that means we won't be hearing from Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, or Kagan, because the Court announces in order of reverse seniority.
So our odds of getting a big decision just seem to have gone up. Hooray!
To answer a question that I saw earlier but can't find now, we do not expect the Court to issue opinions any other day this week.
The second case is Bank of America v. Caulkett. Thomas has the opinion for the Court.
Eleventh Circuit is reversed.
This was argued in late March.
The decision appears to be unanimous except that three Justices do not join in a footnote.
The Court holds that the debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void the debt owed on a junior mortgage lien when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the property if the creditor's claim is both secured by a lien and is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code.
Another opinion on the way.
We have the next opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch. Scalia.
Decision below is reversed.
The Court holds that to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need.
The result is 8-1. Justice Alito has joined the judgment only and writes separately. Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The decision below was from the Tenth Circuit.
And we're waiting . . . . for the next opinion.
Chief Justice writes for the Court. Decision of Third Circuit reversed and remanded.
The vote is 7-2. Alito concurs in part, dissents in part.
The Court holds that the Third Circuit's instruction requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat is not sufficient to support a conviction under the federal law at issue in this case.
Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness will suffice. Given the disposition here, the Court says, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues.
Apparently a second box came out late -- this was not the world's largest box.
Okay, everyone. I have a lot of work to do today, so I'm going to go ahead and get started on it. Thanks for joining us. We don't know for sure, but I assume that we will be back here again on Monday morning. Maybe we'll get some more big cases. Maybe we'll even get some grants next week! Have a terrific week, and we will let you know as soon as we do whether we are expecting opinions.