Hi Everyone from your friendly over-eager amateur. It was a much busier day outside the Court today than the last two days. These official opinion days tend to be much better attended.
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.
There are seven new grants today.
The justices GVR'd in Arlene's Flowers -- granted the petition, vacated the lower court decision, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Cert denied in Brendan Dassey's case, no. 17-1172.
The justices sent Rucho v. Common Cause, the NC partisan gerrymandering case, back to the lower court for further consideration in light of Gill v. Whitford.
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).
Arlene's Flowers had filed a supplemental brief after Masterpiece Cakeshop, asking the court to send the case back to reconsider in light of religious hostility in proceedings against her. Presumably that's what we are getting the GVR for now.
There are two CVSGs, in De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary and Harvey v. Ute Tribe.
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.
I am going to step away from the liveblog for a few minutes to deal with Arlene's Flowers. I will be back with a box count as soon as I can, and there are plenty of others here to answer your questions.
Submit Event
