Live blog of orders and opinions | March 6, 2017
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Good morning! I've been out of the loop this Term. Why is it just "a possibility of opinions" so often this year, when in the past we were pretty certain that opinions were coming on a given day?
-
Among the cases that we are watching for an order is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case of a cake baker who objects on religious grounds to providing cakes for same-sex marriage celebrations.
-
Here's a link to our "petitions to watch" for Friday's conference. www.scotusblog.com
-
Do you think the Supreme Court will say in today's orders list what it is going to do with Gloucester County, after it received the letters from the parties last week?
-
to 4th circuit for consideration in light of guidance documents issued by DOE and DOJ
-
In Rippo v Baker, capital case, court vacates judgment below and remands for further proceedings.
-
Rippo was convicted in state court, state trial judge was target of a federal bribery probe. Rippo moved to disqualify judge because county da office was involved in the investigation.
-
Supreme Court holds that Nevada Supreme Court applied the wrong legal standard. "Under our precedents, the due process clause may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge has no actual bias."
-
Leonard v Texas, civil forfeiture case, cert is denied. Thomas files statement respecting the denial.
-
In Baston v. US, cert denied. Thomas dissents from denial. Case is about whether a Jamaican citizen can be forced by US court to pay restitution to an Australian woman for prostitution in Australia.
-
"We should grant certiorari and reaffirm that our federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, not the world's law giver."
-
Argument had been that this exceeded Congress' powers under the foreign commerce clause.
-
Perez v Florida, cert denied. Sotomayor concurs in denial.
-
She says court should take up question, but this isn't the right case in which to do so.
-
Maybe a silly question, but when the Court appoints an amicus to defend an opinion below, like they did last week, where do they find the attorneys they appoint? Are they just picking SCOTUS Bar Member names out of a hat?
-
last week and again this week the court has appointed counsel in a case e.g. 16-5294 . Why would the court appoint counsel, how do they decide to appoint and are they paid?
-
When a pauper in a habeas is assigned counsel, as in McWilliams today, what are the chances of cert being granted? Higher? Or no bearing.
-
Also aren't we expecting an update on the March 28 oral argument in the Grimm case concerning transgender bathrooms?
-
How does the vacate and remand in Gloucester County effect the stay that had entered?
-
How unusual are the statements made by J Thomas and J Sotomayor made to day re the denial of certs that they aren't disagreeing with?
-
In the Court's order for Lai v. Bell, the Court denied the motion of the petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and specifically mentioned that the petitioner has abused the Court's process. What does all of that mean? -
7-0. The advisory sentencing guidelines not subject to vagueness challenged under due process clause
-
SO residual clause not void for vagueness. 11th circuit affirmed
-
Ginsburg and Sotomayor filed separate opinions concurring in judgment. Kagan did not participate.
-
Both Kennedy and Ginsburg opinions short; Sotomayor's is as long as opinion itself, at 13 pp
-
Here is the opinion in Beckles v. United States. Nora Demleitner will have our analysis. www.supremecourt.gov
-
Thomas wrote in Beckles, so we could get another from him, Kennedy, or Roberts.
-
Case in which man convicted and then learned that one of the jurors had made racially biased comments
-
Court denied motion for new trial based on Colorado no impeachment rule
-
Rule generally prohibits jurors from testifying about statements made in deliberations
-
QQuestion was whether there is an exception when juror statements indicate that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in determining guilt
-
Here is the link to the opinion in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Amy Howe will have our analysis. www.supremecourt.gov
-
"Where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the 6th amendment requires that the no impleachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee,
-
Breakdown. Alito dissents, joined by Roberts and Thomas. Thomas also dissents.
-
Alito: Court's decision is "well intentioned," but "the majority barely bothers to engage with the policy issues implicated by no impeachment rules."
-
Alito: "But even if it had carefully grappled with those issues, it still would have no basis for exalting its own judgment over that of the many expert policy makers who have endorsed broad no impeachment rules."