Scribble

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

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

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
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 will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- 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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 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—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Scribble

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

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award