Good morning and welcome to the live blog
Good morning, everyone! Nice to be back today. The Court is not hearing oral arguments today, so we will have orders at 9:30 and then presumably opinions in one or more argued cases at 10 am. The justices do not sit next week, and then the March sitting will start on March 19.
As is almost always the case, we do not know how many opinions we are getting, or which ones.
But first, we will concentrate on orders, which are expected momentarily.
The Court has granted two cases.
The first is Knick v. Scott Township, limited to question one of the petition. This is a property rights case, asking the justices to reconsider the decision in Williamson County Regional Planning v. Hamilton Bank, which requires a property owner to exhaust his state remedies before filing a federal constitutional takings claim.
The order list for March 5 is available on the Supreme Court's website at this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030518zor_pnk0.pdf
The second grant is Gundy v. US, but only limited to the fourth question presented by the petition: whether Congress's delegation of power to the attorney general to issue regulations interpreting the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Justice Sotomayor dissented from the denial of review in Wessinger v. Vannoy, a capital case involving an attorney's duties to conduct a mitigation investigation when the court has denied funds for expert assistance.
There was one call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general, in United States ex rel Carter v. Halliburton.
A couple of cases that had been on John Elwood's Relist Watch were denied today: Wilson v. Callahan (standard for use of force in police shooting case), Bank Melli v. Bennett (interpretation of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act), and Scott v. FDIC (appointments clause).
We have gotten a lot of questions about whether specific cases will be coming today. I think Sessions and Dimaya is certainly a possibility; it was argued on October 2. Same for Epic, which was argued the same day. Christie v. NCAA was argued on December 4, so I think the chances are lower but it's still possible.
One box of opinions today. The number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions.
We have the first opinion, and it is Texas v. New Mexico.
It is a water rights case, not a basketball game.
The Court holds that the United States may pursue its claims for violations of the Rio Grande Compact, over Colorado's objections.
"This Court, using its unique authority to mold original actions, has sometimes permitted the federal government to participate in compact suits to defend 'distinctively federal interests' that a normal litigant might not be permitted to pursue in traditional litigation."
The opinion in Texas v. New Mexico is available on the Supreme Court's website at this link. Ryke Longest will have our analysis: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/141orig_f204.pdf
It is by Gorsuch, and it is unanimous.
And we have the second and final opinion of the day, in US Bank v. Village at Lakeridge.
It is by Kagan and it is unanimous, although there are concurring opinions. Interesting ones. Kennedy concurs, and then Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion joined by Kennedy, Thomas and Gorsuch.
The opinion in U.S. Bank is available on the Supreme Court's website at this link. Ronald Mann will have our analysis. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1509_4fbi.pdf
The Court rules that the Ninth Circuit was correct to review the Bankruptcy Court's determination regarding whether someone was a "non-statutory insider" for clear error, rather than de novo.
And that is all we have for the day. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm not sure exactly when we will be back here, but probably not until March 20 (the next day that the Court is likely to issue opinions). Hope to see you then!
The opinion for the Court clarifies that when answering a question that may involved "mixed" issues of law and fact involves primarily factual work, a court of appeals should review for clear error rather than de novo. But Justice Sotomayor's concurrence (for four Justices) points out that the underlying test in this case presumes that the question is largely factual when it may not be so. That means you might see a dispute in the future about whether or not the Ninth Circuit is using the right test for this bankruptcy issue. But the Court's clarification on the standard of review more generally would remain relevant.
Hi all -- that's all we've got for this morning. Thank you to everyone for joining us. The next opinion day might be in two weeks. Happy Monday!
Submit Event
