Supreme Court Decisions for Friday, April 17th

3,402 Views | 27 Replies | Last: 25 days ago by BMX Bandit
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Court will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Below are the list of what I see as the biggest cases which have been argued.

Louisiana v. Callais- Whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Voting Right Act)

Chiles v. Salazar- Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. (Conversion Therapy)

Trump v. Slaughter- Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled. Also whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana- Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox- Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Trump v. Cook- Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

U.S. v. Hemani- Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission- Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. 109.37.

Watson v. Republican National Committee- Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. 7, 2 U.S.C. 1, and 3 U.S.C. 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

Trump v. Barbara- Birthright Citizenship

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

Opinions are also released in reverse seniority with the Chief Justice always being the most "senior" regardless of time on the Court. So if Jackson has the first opinion, then the next one can come from any Justice. If the first opinion is by Alito, it means the next opinion would be either by Alito again, Thomas or the Chief.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for doing these!
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thx. Sean Spicer reiterated his report from yesterday (below) that the minority is delaying the voting rights act decision to run out the clock in states such as Louisiana where redistricting for this year will be impossible even when they gain the ability to eliminate 'majority minority' required districts, due to their statutory timelines.

I don't think he's one to make up sources, and could easily see Justice DEI etc. doing this. Hopefully proven wrong in 45 or so minutes.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They can only delay so long. There are deadlines based on when cases are argued, which is probably why a lot of people are expecting Louisiana v. Callais today.

But, we'll know in roughly 45 minutes one way or the other.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only one box, so 1-2 opinions most likely.
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Big for Republicans if this happens. Racially drawn districts should have never been allowed in the first place.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only opinion today is Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish, LA

8-0 By Justice Thomas

Jackson concurs in the judgement. Justice Alito was recused due to stock ownership.

Quote:

This was a case in which Chevron was seeking to rely on a federal law known as the "federal officer removal statute" to transfer an environmental lawsuit brought against it in Louisiana state court to federal court.

Chevron contended that it could move the lawsuit because it implicates Chevron's production of crude oil for the US military during World War 2.

The court holds that the lawsuit falls under the statute, and thus Chevron can remove the lawsuit to federal court, because it "relates to" Chevron's wartime refining of aviation gasoline for the military.

The court reverses the Fifth Circuit, holding that it was wrong when it concluded that "the suit against Chevron was not 'for or relating to' its performance of federal duties." The court thus sends the case back to the lower court for another look.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it will happen, but not until May-June, so likely very little impact in this election cycle. There is no procedural penalty for a justice delaying writing an opinion to be released, to my knowledge.

The truth of the matter is, this decision will be an open driving factor behind Democrats push to pack the court if they win in 2028.

It's also a very complicated case from a procedural/legal analytical perspective, so a justice who is self-admittedly very often confused probably has a tough time addressing the various issues and justices who disagree with her.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

I think it will happen, but not until May-June, so likely very little impact in this election cycle. There is no procedural penalty for a justice delaying writing an opinion to be released, to my knowledge.

The truth of the matter is, this decision will be an open driving factor behind Democrats push to pack the court if they win in 2028.

It's also a very complicated case from a procedural/legal analytical perspective, so a justice who is self-admittedly very often confused probably has a tough time addressing the various issues and justices who disagree with her.


It is complicated from a procedural perspective.

What is complicated about the question from a legal analysis perspective.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From a legal analysis alone, though I think it is a quite connected matter, reversing a 'relatively' long standing (1965) precedent on the basis of 'we've done enough of this' basically, is problematic. Factor in that many of the affected states (basically the southeast) until very recently were under consent decrees with the DoJ to review any redistricting maps/decisions, and there is a large body of legal opinions (ostensibly) justifying the status quo, and not just from partisan Obama-Biden judges.

The notion of 'packing and cracking' minority neighborhoods/cities into specific districts is problematic, itself, and also touches then (indirectly even) on legal 'protections' such as fair housing laws, desegregation litigation (not just school bussing), disparate impact etc.

And please note to all, I am not taking the side of the left here, that racial discrimination is constitutionally legal/justified now or ever, it's just that the LBJ VRA/Civil Rights Act/great society bs made this, functionally, the law of the land, and reversing it in toto or in part is a heavy lift, as such. The simplified non-legalese counter is that we just are not the racist region/country dominated by bigoted Whites politically, that we might have been 70+ years ago, and institutional racism by the courts to restrict that is no longer warranted, nor even helpful.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the response.

I understand that there are a lot of challenges. However, it's really not "complicated".

The underlying issue here is equal protection under the law. Once upon a time, we were not able to trust all of the states to protect minority rights to vote and participate in the political process.

The country IS very much different. We had a black president. That is hard to ignore.

Now the question is whether or not the disparate impact standard is actually getting in the way of equal protection now, as opposed to protecting it.

I think it is getting in the way. That isn't complicated. Maybe hard, but not complicated.

However, it is long-standing jurisprudence, which is important. But, that didn't save Roe v Wade from bad jurisprudence. It didn't save Chevron Deference from bad jurisprudence. My hope is that it won't save disparate impact from bad jurisprudence.

HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From SCOTUSBLOG: the court has indicated that it may release opinions next Wednesday, April 22, at 10:00 am EDT.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thx, and while I agree with your broader points, I just think 'how' government mandated/endorsed racial discrimination is ended is a complexity the court is not likely to agree on, in a 5+ majority. I strongly think 5 will agree, but the 'how' in a plurality will be an issue because they collectively don't really want to trigger more litigation than they have to (plus, Obama/Schumer etc. will be calling for riots over it).

The truth is the longer DEI/Sotomayor/Kagan hold out, the more optimistic I get though for a 'big' opinion. My suspicion is this will be Alito's 'going away' decision, but it could plausibly be written/authored by Thomas or Roberts too.

I wonder how many boxes of crayon's DEI has gone through in her drafts.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scribbling note to self for Wednesday, 4-22.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I just think 'how' government mandated/endorsed racial discrimination is ended is a complexity the court is not likely to agree on

This is fair enough.

I agree with you that the longer this bird sits in the oven, the larger it is likely to be.

Also think that the fact that we have SCOTUS judges being so vocal right now with the public is a huge indicator.

I actually just moved to Austin, and I hate that I missed the chance to go listen to the greatest jurist of my generation.
Bulldog73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fox says Alito not expected to step down, is hiring clerks for next year. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-not-expected-retire-term-cooling-supreme-court-vacancy-speculation-sources
74Ag1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If they have so many days (SC rules) to announce decision after arguments are complete (10/15/25) , they don't have that much more time to delay it do they? How many days?

With regard to drawing new lines/districts the states should work 24/7 to get this done. No exceptions
74Ag1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In L vs C
It was argued on October 15, 2025. Using the average 15 weeks which is 3 1/2 months a decision should have been announced in February. It's past due. Does the court have internal rules that require once a vote has been taken they announce their decision? If they delay until June scramble to get the new lines drawn. Hopefully the states could call special elections after the midterms and remove members that were elected in November with old lines.



74Ag1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

They can only delay so long. There are deadlines based on when cases are argued, which is probably why a lot of people are expecting Louisiana v. Callais today.

But, we'll know in roughly 45 minutes one way or the other.

How long can they delay? It was argued on Oct 15, 2025.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74Ag1 said:

Rapier108 said:

They can only delay so long. There are deadlines based on when cases are argued, which is probably why a lot of people are expecting Louisiana v. Callais today.

But, we'll know in roughly 45 minutes one way or the other.

How long can they delay? It was argued on Oct 15, 2025.

Until the end of term in June. That is unless C.J. Roberts decides otherwise. He can release the majority opinion without dissents, nor concurring opinions being completed. Not tradition but he can do that.
rab79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

74Ag1 said:

Rapier108 said:

They can only delay so long. There are deadlines based on when cases are argued, which is probably why a lot of people are expecting Louisiana v. Callais today.

But, we'll know in roughly 45 minutes one way or the other.

How long can they delay? It was argued on Oct 15, 2025.

Until the end of term in June. That is unless C.J. Roberts decides otherwise. He can release the majority opinion without dissents, nor concurring opinions being completed. Not tradition but he can do that.

I think I will refrain from holding my breath while waiting for Roberts to take that action.
74Ag1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

74Ag1 said:

Rapier108 said:

They can only delay so long. There are deadlines based on when cases are argued, which is probably why a lot of people are expecting Louisiana v. Callais today.

But, we'll know in roughly 45 minutes one way or the other.

How long can they delay? It was argued on Oct 15, 2025.

Until the end of term in June. That is unless C.J. Roberts decides otherwise. He can release the majority opinion without dissents, nor concurring opinions being completed. Not tradition but he can do that.

OK thanks
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think there is technically even a requirement that an opinion be released by the end of the term. It is certainly tradition/expected. I hope so, and I hope someone here can share it if so. Baker v. Carr drew deep division and required re-arguing in the next term. Coincidentally on a similar issue. I have little doubt that Justice DEI will drag this out as long as possible under any policy or tradition, and Roberts doesn't seem to have the courage to try to stop that. I presume he could in theory simply require/allow an opinion be released without the holdout's dissent.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is no oversight body for SCOTUS. They operate on internally determined rules/traditions, governed only by themselves, and the 'decider' is John Roberts. Make of that what one will.
AstroAg05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:

I don't think there is technically even a requirement that an opinion be released by the end of the term. It is certainly tradition/expected. I hope so, and I hope someone here can share it if so. Baker v. Carr drew deep division and required re-arguing in the next term. Coincidentally on a similar issue. I have little doubt that Justice DEI will drag this out as long as possible under any policy or tradition, and Roberts doesn't seem to have the courage to try to stop that. I presume he could in theory simply require/allow an opinion be released without the holdout's dissent.


This case was already punted last term and reheard this one. It obviously has some very deep division.
Troy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Y'all should look at the history of Roe v. Wade. Argued in one term, reargued in the next term, one of the justices spent the summer at the Mayo clinic researching, all before the opinion was finally issued.

The difficult decisions that are likely going to be controversial take a tortuous path and take longer than expected.

No matter where you sit on this case, you know this one is going to be controversial.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Using the average 15 weeks which is 3 1/2 months


Is a terrible way to say when a ruling is "due"
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.