Good morning, everyone! Welcome to our live blog. I am down at the Supreme Court's press room, where we are waiting on orders from last week's conference at 9:30 and then opinions at 10 am.
Here in the press room we're talking about whether the Court will finally act on the federal government's petition to vacate the D.C. Circuit's decision that cleared the way for an undocumented pregnant teen to have an abortion (and to have the teen's lawyers sanctioned). That case has been sitting on the court's docket for several months now.
Headed in to wait for orders now. Back momentarily.
We have two grants. First is BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos, the second is Air and Liquid Systems v. Devries.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos is a case involving an IRS regulation that interprets taxable “compensation” under the RRTA to include pay for time lost. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit rejected that interpretation, ruling that payments for time lost from work are not taxable. Now the Court will weigh in on that question.
Still no action on Azar v. Garza.
In Air and Liquid Systems, the justices will review a ruling by the Third Circuit that, under maritime law, a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos can still be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos in another product if the manufacturer should reasonably foresee that its conduct would lead to the injuries – for example, if the manufacturer knew that its product would be used with a part that contained asbestos.
The first part of today's order list contains many, many cases that are sent back to the lower courts for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, the court's recent opinion ruling that the definition of "violent felony" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutionally vague.
There is also a call for the view of the solicitor general, in Osage Wind v. Osage Minerals Council.
For those of you who are just joining us, we are expecting the justices to take the bench at 10 am to issue opinions in argued cases. They issued orders from last week's conference at 9:30 this morning, but those are announcements (for the most part) about which cases they will or will not hear on the merits. So nothing yet on, among other things, Murphy v. NCAA (the case formerly known as Christie v. NCAA). We don't know what cases we are going to get today -- the conventional wisdom here in the press room is that, if we get a "big" case today, it's likely to be either Epic Systems v. Lewis or Murphy.
Three boxes today, apparently. Whee!!!
Headed in to wait for decisions. Type to you soon!
About a million of you have asked whether the sports betting case will be decided today. The answer is that we don't know--but we are about to find out in the next few minutes! Stay tuned!
We have Murphy v. NCAA, from Alito. The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed.
Six justices sign on to the majority in full, Breyer joins as to most. Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Breyer.
Court says that legalization "of sports gambling is a controversial subject" that "requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make."
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."
PASPA is the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.
Next case is Dahda v. United States, by Breyer.
It is 8-0; Gorsuch did not participate.
The decisions of the Tenth Circuit are affirmed.
At issue in the case is a federal statute allowing judges to issue wiretap orders authorizing the interception of communications. Judges need to find probable cause, and the statute also provides for the suppression of the contents of a communication intercepted by wiretaps if the communication was unlawfully intercepted the order was insufficient on its face, or the interception did not conform with the order.
The Court holds that the challenged orders in this case were not insufficient on their face. This is even though investigation was in Kansas and communications were intercepted from a listening post outside Kansas, because orders also contained a sentence purporting to authorize interception outside Kansas.
Submit Event
