The Ninth Circuit had ruled that the iPhone purchasers were direct purchasers b/c they purchased apps directly from Apple.
Unless this is the only opinion, we could still get an opinion from any other justice since Kavanaugh is most junior.
Going back in to wait for the next opinion in just a second.
Justice Thomas has two cases this morning. The first is Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt -- which, as Thomas points out, is on its third trip to the Court. The question is whether the Constitution allows a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the courts of another state. The Supreme Court today holds that it does not, thereby overruling its contrary decision in Nevada v. Hall, circa 1979.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada is reversed and remanded.
This case is also 5-4. Thomas is joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
A big part of this decision is also the debate over stare decisis, the idea that courts will normally adhere to their prior precedent. The Thomas opinion emphasizes that stare decisis "is not an inexorable command."
Okay, going back in for the second Thomas opinion.
The second and final case of the day is Cochise Consultancy v. US ex rel Hunt. It is unanimous.
The Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
The question before the court was how to calculate the limitations period for false claims cases in which the United States does not intervene.
To be clear, this was the last decision of the day for everyone.
Ah, yes, the old Cochise Consultancy case. I better get on that.
Folks, I have a couple of denials to write about and the opinion analysis of Cochise Consultancy to write for Scotusblog. It's been fun to participate in the Live Blog today, though I hope to be back in the courtroom next Monday. Cheers!
Justice Kavanaugh had a short concurring opinion at the time. But today we got an opinion from Alito (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) dissenting from the grant of the application for a stay, and then Kavanaugh (joined by the Chief) has an additional statement respecting the grant of the application for a stay.
I will write in more detail about the Murphy v. Collier order in a post for SCOTUSblog later, but the upshot is that Alito writes that Murphy filed his claim too late. "If the tactics of Murphy's attorneys in this case are not inexcusably dilatory, it is hard to know what the concept means." But, Alito says, Murphy "raises serious questions under both the First Amendment and" the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Kavanaugh writes to point out that, as a result of the stay, Texas changed its policy so that everyone gets a spiritual adviser in the viewing room and no one gets one in the execution chamber -- which probably "passes muster under" RLUIPA. And this was different, Kavanaugh says, than when the court refused to stay the execution of a Muslim inmate who wanted to have his spiritual adviser in the execution chamber. But Kavanaugh agrees that, as a general matter, inmates should bring their claims "in a timely manner."
Okay, I am going to get to work now. Thanks so much for joining us, and have a great week. Hopefully we'll see you back here next Monday. We'll have a podcast coming out later today with John Elwood of Relist Watch, and we'll wait to see what Relist Watch has for us later this week.
We will also have Amy covering orders, and analyses in today's three opinions. Thank you every one for joining us!
Submit Event
