Supreme Court Decisions for Wednesday, April 22nd

2,680 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by aggiehawg
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)

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.

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.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fingers crossed we get several opinions and one of real import today. Frustrated with the drip,drip,drip pace of this term.

Thank you for doing these threads.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As always, thank you for doing these threads!
fc2112
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ditto. I appreciate it too.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thx as well. Scotusblog live-blog link.

Not a decision, of course, but they will also hear arguments today regarding the rights of green card holders who commit crimes.

The correct 3 seem grumpy this week, at least:
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good news the liberal three are grumpy. Bad news we get to listen to KBJ drone on about complete nonsense during orals. Hope this is a short argument but with KBJ, unlikely.
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is the prevailing wisdom that it will be Roberts or Thomas authoring the Callais opinion, or is it anyone's guess at this point?
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P.H. Dexippus said:

Is the prevailing wisdom that it will be Roberts or Thomas authoring the Callais opinion, or is it anyone's guess at this point?

Alito
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Good news the liberal three are grumpy. Bad news we get to listen to KBJ drone on about complete nonsense during orals. Hope this is a short argument but with KBJ, unlikely.


Drink everytime she says "I guess I dont understand..."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
P.H. Dexippus said:

Is the prevailing wisdom that it will be Roberts or Thomas authoring the Callais opinion, or is it anyone's guess at this point?

In reality, anyone's guess. For court watchers doing a gut check, Thomas but more likely Roberts keeps it for himself as he is wont to do in big cases. Thomas would craft a better opinion on the law, in my view. Roberts innate squishiness would insert wiggle room in dicta, like he's trying to please or give a nod to everybody.

Have never been fond of a Roberts opinion for that reason. He's the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Chief Justice of Consolation Prizes.
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Slight derail while we await the release: It came up on the thread about Thomas' recent speech in Austin- who is/are the Aggie(s) that have clerked for Thomas?
huskerag2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chiles v. Salazar has been decided, opinion released on March 31
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And of course, the big question;

And yes, a 'squishy' opinion about racist voting districts are ok for one more election would almost be 'worst case.'
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who?mikejones! said:

aggiehawg said:

Good news the liberal three are grumpy. Bad news we get to listen to KBJ drone on about complete nonsense during orals. Hope this is a short argument but with KBJ, unlikely.


Drink everytime she says "I guess I dont understand..."

Are you trying to get us killed?
You can turn off signatures, btw
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With regard to Louisiana v. Callais, I read something interesting yesterday...

John Roberts early legal career...

Quote:

As an assistant to the attorney general, Roberts concentrated on the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, especially Section 2 and Section 5, both of which Roberts and other Reagan lawyers believed to have unnecessarily intruded on state regulations. As an assistant to the attorney general, Roberts concentrated on the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, especially Section 2 and Section 5, both of which Roberts and other Reagan lawyers believed to have unnecessarily intruded on state regulations.

You can turn off signatures, btw
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1 box again. Ugh.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One of the reasons I disfavor the use of equitable doctrine over black letter law. Too much wiggle room and discretion to not grant a remedy when it is available.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Up first today is Enbridge Energy v. Nessel

9-0 by Justice Sotomayor
Quote:

This was a case about whether a district court had the discretion to excuse a company's failure to meet the deadline to transfer a case from state court to federal court. The Supreme Court says it did not, and the case must go back to the state court.

Very short so got at least 1 more coming.

Anything else will be by Sotomayor again, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lame
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#2 for today is Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts dissent.

Quote:

This is a case in which a military contractor argued that federal law trumps a lawsuit brought by a member of the armed forces who was seriously injured by a Taliban operative working for the contractor on a base in Afghanistan.

The soldier and the military argued that the contractor's conduct was not authorized by the military. The majority holds that federal law does not supersede the soldier's state law claims.

And that's it for today. There are 37 cases still pending, some of which haven't been argued yet. Today, along with Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week should be the rest of the arguments for the term.
Claude!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

#2 for today is Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts dissent.

And that's it for today.


That can't be a common lineup for an opinion.
huskerag2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Claude! said:

Rapier108 said:

#2 for today is Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts dissent.

And that's it for today.


That can't be a common lineup for an opinion.



Last term, Thomas and Alito were on opposite sides twice, and this is the first time it's happened this term.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, crap.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Punted again on La vs Callais, something is up for sure on that one
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Claude! said:

Rapier108 said:

#2 for today is Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts dissent.

And that's it for today.


That can't be a common lineup for an opinion.

Weird majorities happen a few times every term. Criminal cases tend to make the strangest bedfellows, but others can and do as well.
John Fisher Pessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How long can dissenters drag things along for Callais?
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

Punted again on La vs Callais, something is up for sure on that one


Constitutionalists on the court probably worried about death threats. Half joking.
huskerag2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thomas writing the majority, with Alito dissenting joined by Roberts has to be the most unicorn of all decision lineups.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John Fisher Pessimist said:

How long can dissenters drag things along for Callais?


At this point I'm wondering if Roberts is trying to form some type of coalition to decide something right down the middle. Basically one of his patented decisions that decides nothing.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John Fisher Pessimist said:

How long can dissenters drag things along for Callais?

As long as Roberts allows it.

There is a reason that various iterations of SCOTUS over the years have a shorthand for their era. Named after whoever is the C.J. at the time. The Warren Court, the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, etc.

This is the Roberts Court.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wonder if Roberts has any eligibility left? Seems like he's a pretty damn good punter.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Roberts is a coward. I'm not confident at all that VRA gets addressed before mid-terms. He absolute does not want a SC decision going out with that much impact ahead of an election.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Roberts is a coward. I'm not confident at all that VRA gets addressed before mid-terms. He absolute does not want a SC decision going out with that much impact ahead of an election.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this case from last term and they held it over until this term? So if the goal was not to decide this during the midterms, their own fault.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

YouBet said:

Roberts is a coward. I'm not confident at all that VRA gets addressed before mid-terms. He absolute does not want a SC decision going out with that much impact ahead of an election.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this case from last term and they held it over until this term? So if the goal was not to decide this during the midterms, their own fault.

Yes it was. They sent it back for additional briefing.

I don't think the court cares much if it's ready in time or not for the midterms. If they majority opinion is ready, they can release it. So either it's not ready, and it's just taking a while, or the majority opinion is ready, and the court doesn't share the collective angst of F16.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I don't think the court cares much if it's ready in time or not for the midterms. If they majority opinion is ready, they can release it. So either it's not ready, and it's just taking a while, or the majority opinion is ready, and the court doesn't share the collective angst of F16.

Oh I'd say Roberts has some angst but his angst is about doing his job managing the Court more than anything else. The guy is just not innately capable of leadership. Not in his DNA. And that makes for a lousy Chief Justice in my view.
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.