Good morning, and welcome to the live blog.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. We are expecting orders from last Thursday's conference at 9:30 am. There are a bunch of interesting cases on which the justices could act today (although for some of those we have been saying that for MONTHS, literally), so I can't wait to see what we get!
Lots of you are, I know, waiting on Peruta v. California, in which the Court has been asked to decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.
The Court has granted one new case, SAS Institute v. Lee.
It's a patent case, and here is the question presented: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held.
All of the Multistate Tax Compact cases have been denied.
Justice Alito did not participate in the Multistate Tax Compact cases.
No action on Peruta v. California or Masterpiece Cake Shop.
The court also does not appear to have acted on the group of cases challenging the government's obtaining cell-site data (that is, where a cell phone connects with a cell tower) without a warrant, nor does it appear to have acted on Sessions v. Binderup, a Second Amendment challenge by two men to the bar on possession of guns by a felon as it applies to them.
The Court also summarily affirmed the decision in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC, a challenge to the ban on "soft money" in elections.
Interestingly, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have noted probable jurisdiction and set the soft-money case for oral argument.
Word has it there are two boxes of opinions today.
Turning to the merits docket, as one of our readers has noted, there is only one case left from the November sitting: Sessions (formerly Lynch) v. Morales-Santana, and I believe that Justice Ginsburg is the only justice who has not yet written for November.
Morales-Santana is pretty squarely in Ginsburg's wheelhouse: it is a challenge to a federal law that imposes different requirements for citizenship depending on whether your U.S.-citizen parent is your mother or father. Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not like those kinds of gender-based distinctions.
The first opinion of the day is in the North Carolina redistricting case Cooper v. Harris.
THe decision is by Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch did not participate.
This is a case in which a three-judge district court ruled that NC officials violated the bar on using race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines without a compelling reason when they created two districts with majority-black voting-age populations. The Court today affirmed that ruling.
Although States enjoy leeway to take race-based
actions reasonably judged necessary under a proper interpretation
of the VRA, that latitude cannot rescue District
1. We by no means “insist that a state legislature, when
redistricting, determine precisely what percent minority
population [§2 of the VRA] demands.” Ibid. But neither
will we approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is
supported by no evidence and whose raison d’être is a legal mistake.
Moving on to the next decision, on this rainy day, the next case is Watersplash v. Menon, by Justice Alito. It is a unanimous decision.
The court rules that the Hague Service Convention, which deals with the service of documents overseas, does not prohibit service of process by mail.
The third and final opinion of the day comes from Justice Thomas, in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. It is about the appropriate venue for patent cases.
It is unanimous except for Gorsuch, who did not participate.
The court reverses and remands, holding that a domestic corporation only "resides" in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.
I'm going to sign off right now and get to work. Thanks so much for joining us, and hope to "see" you next Tuesday. Have a great week!
That's all from us today. Thanks, everyone!
Submit Event
