Live blog of orders and opinions | June 3, 2019
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the May 30 conference and opinions in argued cases. The justices added three new cases to their merits docket for next term: Allen v. Cooper, Retirement Plans Committee v. Jander and Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S. The justices released their decisions in four cases: Azar v. Allina Health Services, Taggart v. Lorenzen, Fort Bend County v. Davis and Mont v. U.S. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Here's the opinion in Fort Bend County v. Davis. Charlotte Garden will have our analysis:
-
Here's the opinion in Mont v. US. Fiona Doherty will have our analysis:
-
The court holds that pretrial detention which is later credited as time served for a new conviction is "imprisonment in connection with a conviction" and therefore tolls the supervised-release term under federal law, even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.
-
The justices are now done with opinions. Just to recap: We got orders from last week's conference at 9:30. There were three new grants, but the Court did not act on any of the high-profile cases we've been waiting on. Then we had four opinions in argued cases: Azar v. Allina Health Services (administrative law and the Medicare program); Taggart v. Lorenzen (bankruptcy); Fort Bend County v. Davis (civil procedure); and Mont v. US (sentencing).
-
Roberts has NOT joined the liberals for a 5–4 decision this term. He DID join them for a 5–3 decision that Kavanaugh didn't participate in (Madison v Alabama). But there have been three other cases with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in dissent, where Roberts AND Kavanaugh BOTH joined the liberals for the majority, so that looks like the better parallel. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have left the four other conservatives in dissent to give the four liberals a majority.
-
Also, although I noted earlier that the justices would have to take the DACA cases at some point, what I had meant to say was that they would have to do something with them at some point -- either grant or deny. I can't imagine that they are actually waiting for Congress to act.