Live blog of orders and opinions | June 25, 2018 (with John Elwood and First Mondays)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 21 conference (9:30 a.m.) and opinions in argued cases (10 a.m.). The justices added seven new cases to their merits docket for next term. The justices announced their decisions in Abbott v. Perez and Ohio v. American Express Co. Guest bloggers from First Mondays and John Elwood of Relist Watch also joined us.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Insight on how Court decides which of multiple cert petitions to grant (hear argument) when all raise the same issue (e.g. Should Court overrule dual sovereignty exception/doctrine re Double Jeopardy Clause, see concurring opinion of Justices Thomas and Ginsburg in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle) ?
PS Would be interesting grant given last weeksâ decision in Currier v. VA, but more likely a dissent from denial of cert.) -
Good morning, everyone! Sorry to be joining you late, and this time we can't even blame Metro, which worked flawlessly this morning. There was a planned evacuation drill at the Senate office buildings, which meant a few extra blocks' walk to get here. Fortunately it is a lovely morning here in DC today.
-
We are expecting orders from last week's conference momentarily. Lots of people, including me, are waiting to see whether the justices will act on Arlene's Flowers, the case involving the florist who cited her religious beliefs in telling a same-sex couple that she would not do their wedding flowers.
-
-
Okay, everyone, the First Mondays crew is signing offâthanks for having us! Don't forget to check out the show at firstmondays.fm and, for exclusive bonus content, you can back us on Patreon too. See you next time.
-
The seven grants are, as follows: Sudan v. Harrison (service of foreign government), Washington Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den (Indian fuel tax), Dawson v. Steager (intergovernmental tax immunity), Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert (effect of failure to file timely notice of appeal), Biestek v. Berryhill (Social Security), and Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (confidentiality and "prior art" in patents).
-
Looks like no action in Wass v. Idaho, involving application of the Marks test to the plurality opinion in Missouri v. Seibert.ÂÂ
-
On the Arlene Flowers GVR: One thing that's really important to know is that the decision to GVR is, after the decision to deny certiorari, the one that the Court takes most easily. If one or two Justices want to push for a GVR in light of a decision, the rest of the Court will usually go along. That's because the Court knows it will get another look at the case later, and is almost always willing to wait for the next chance to decide an issue. So you can't read too much into them.
-
CVSG stands for "call for the views of the solicitor general" -- it means asking the U.S. government to weigh in on a case in which it may have an interest (b/c a federal law or treaty is involved, for example). The government will file a brief, and the Court is overwhelmingly likely to follow the government's recommendation.
-
And looks like the Court needs more time with Nieves v. Bartlett, involving whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. Given that Lozman v. Riviera Beach provides the relevant rule, perhaps they're struggling with application of that rule to these facts.ÂÂÂÂ
-
And one more trip around the block for Kaushal v. Indiana, involving a criminal defendant who wanted to withdraw his guilty plea once he became fully aware of the immigration consequences of conviction.Â
-
The Court also took no action on the petition in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, which is a pretty interesting FDA preemption case where the SG recommended a grant.