Scribble

Scribble

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky

Live blog of orders and opinions | June 25, 2018 (with John Elwood and First Mondays)

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.

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

May 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of May 23, 2019

3rd & 7 37yd

I always felt that protesting in front of the Supreme Court was an odd thing to do... the Justices are supposed to be above the popular passions of democracy and apply the law as written, so no signs outside the Court should make a difference to them!

by Sam Z 6/25/2018 1:44:02 PM
Does the Court like to space out opinions for cases with a lot of national attention? Is it unlikely we get Janus and Trump v. Hawaii in the same day?

by John 6/25/2018 1:45:29 PM
@Eric, do you have any guesses on boxes/cases today?

by Nate 6/25/2018 1:45:32 PM
Amy, your prediction for Janus?

by Charles 6/25/2018 1:46:09 PM
Kevin Russel, the protests clearly had an effect on the court in Casey. It may not have been the effect the protesters wanted, but they were referenced in the opinion.

by Howie 6/25/2018 1:46:30 PM
The Janus opinion has to be released today... right?

by Sam Z 6/25/2018 1:46:50 PM
Has Justice Ginsburg’s flying unicorn made its appearance yet today?

by Guest 6/25/2018 1:47:01 PM
If they don’t include a case in the orders sheet does that mean it’s been relisted?

by swampmonster 6/25/2018 1:47:32 PM
I'm betting Janus is the very last one they will release because it will affect the most people. And if it goes the way I fear, it will hurt many people.

by LJ 6/25/2018 1:49:00 PM
Isn't today the last scheduled day for the Court to issue opinions? Or do folks expect opinions the rest of this week?

by Ed 6/25/2018 1:50:55 PM
I feel like no one but me is here for the Florida v. Georgia decision...

by David W. 6/25/2018 1:51:04 PM
Why would they wait another day? Do they have loose ends to tie up? Or just to spread out controversial decisions?

by wustl-bears 6/25/2018 1:51:26 PM
I'm betting Hawai`i is the last opinion released on Thursday as it will uoheld the Executive orders.

by Dr Karl Hoppe 6/25/2018 1:51:53 PM
Interesting. The government told the Court that Kumar v. Republic of Sudan was a "more suitable vehicle" than Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, but the Court took Harrison anyway.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1094/47798/20180522175448831_16-1094%20Sudan.pdf#page=13

by John Elwood 6/25/2018 1:51:57 PM
@DavidW. Didn't the SEC season already decide that on the field?

by Tasini 6/25/2018 1:52:16 PM
Do we have an idea on who is writing Trump? Seems like Alito has been penciled in on Janus for a while. Are we thinking the Chief is taking this?

by John 6/25/2018 1:53:25 PM
Does no action on Bearcomesout suggest they're going to schedule another conference?

by Steve 6/25/2018 1:53:59 PM
Is today the last day for decisions, or they going to also come back Thursday?

by chris 6/25/2018 1:54:28 PM
Five minute buzzer just sounded, no boxes yet.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 1:55:27 PM
So how about those dual sovereignty/double jeopardy cases that have been hanging around all term? They're not on the list.

by John Regan 6/25/2018 1:55:30 PM
A look at the media setup outside, per Erica.

by Jon Levitan 6/25/2018 1:55:38 PM
Of the remaining six opinions how many could the Court easily punt, since that seems to be their go to option this year

by TheIntern 6/25/2018 1:55:44 PM
One box today, folks. I think we are not finishing the term today.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 1:56:12 PM
If a case isn't on the orders list today, does that mean Sept/Oct is the next time we could see some movement?

by GB 6/25/2018 1:56:47 PM
As an non citizen from Canada, i find it exciting to see your system in action. Bring it on.

by Pierre-Luc Gagnon 6/25/2018 1:57:31 PM
Any chance that the decision in Trump v. Hawaii will rule the executive orders unconstitutional, or is it generally accepted at this point that they'll be upheld?

by aspiringlawstudent 6/25/2018 1:58:10 PM
It's time to go in, folks! Back soon!

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 1:59:11 PM
Florida v. Georgia is a huge deal to the States involved, and a very small deal to the rest of the People. I can't imagine a bigger spread in any case in that regard. I'm thinking that's the one we get today.

by Eric Citron 6/25/2018 2:00:21 PM
Also, because today is a scheduled sitting, I'm guessing there will be a bunch of attorney admissions at the outset. That means we might be waiting longer than usual for the announcements.

by Eric Citron 6/25/2018 2:01:23 PM
We have the first opinion. It is the Texas racial gerrymandering case, Abbott v. Perez. It is by Justice Alito, it is 5-4.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:02:12 PM
Court holds that all but one of the legislative districts under review is lawful.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:02:33 PM
Here's the opinion in Abbott v. Perez. Amy Howe will have our analysis:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-586_o7kq.pdf

by Andrew Hamm 6/25/2018 2:02:35 PM
a little background here: This case involves allegations of racial gerrymandering – that is, that Texas lawmakers drew federal congressional and state legislative districts that harmed black and Hispanic residents there. It began as a challenge to maps drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2011. In 2012, a federal district court drew new maps for the election that year; the state legislature adopted those maps the following year. Last year the district court invalidated parts of the 2013 plans, on the ground that they perpetuated discrimination in the 2011 plan.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:02:59 PM
Very thick decision. Can't be another long one today, I don't think. Also -- I was wrong on admissions; last Monday was the last day.

by Eric Citron 6/25/2018 2:03:26 PM
Court upholds the district court's decision that HD90 is a racial gerrymander.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:03:57 PM
"Except with respect to one Texas House district," Alito writes, "we hold that the court below erred in effectively enjoining the use of the districting maps adopted by the Legislature in 2013."

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:04:38 PM
Thomas has a brief concurrence, restating his view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to redistricting. He is joined by Gorscuch.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:05:05 PM
Sotomayor has main dissent, joined by RBG, Breyer, and Kagan.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:05:24 PM
Majority opinion is 41 pages long; Thomas's concurrence is 1 page; Sotomayor's dissent is 46 pages.

by Tejinder 6/25/2018 2:05:57 PM
Strong words from the start from Sotomayor: "The Court today goes out of its way to permit the State of Texas to use maps that he three-judge District Court unanimously found were adopted for the purpose of preserving the racial discrimination that tainted its previous maps."

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:06:22 PM
Okay, going back in to wait for next opinion. Could be from anyone but Gorsuch, Sotomayor, or Kagan.

by Amy Howe 6/25/2018 2:07:04 PM
But since districts are contiguous, if one is invalidated, doesn't that require that at least one other (and likely more) be reapportioned as well?

by Frank Cardella 6/25/2018 2:07:26 PM
What is the remedy when ONE district is found to be unlawful? You can't redraw a single district without redrawing at least one adjoining district.

by jeffreynye 6/25/2018 2:07:28 PM
When one CD was found unconstitutional in Virginia, 4 districts wound up changing.

by Football Guy 6/25/2018 2:10:44 PM
They will need to redraw at least one contiguous districts, perhaps more, perhaps even a non-contiguous district depending on how complicated the situation is. This is much narrower in scope than ordering a state legislature to start from scratch because the entire process was tainted.

by District Dude 6/25/2018 2:11:19 PM

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their May 23 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

30
Conference