Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog.
We are expecting orders at 9:30 this morning.
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.
Amy just went to line up for the order list.
Gloucester County judgment vacated remanded
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.
The five-minute buzzer just sounded.
Amy is lining up for opinions now.
First opinion in Beckles v US
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
Thomas wrote in Beckles, so we could get another from him, Kennedy, or Roberts.
Pena Rodriguez by Kennedy, reversed and remanded
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
"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."
Thank you for joining us!