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 remaining for the term.

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

Monsanto Company v. Durnell- Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

Chatrie v. United States- Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe- Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Haitian nationals (Miot) and Syrian nationals (Mullin).

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.

As of this morning, there are 26 remaining cases.

Thx as usual. The only Jackson opinions I enjoy are her solo dissent diatribes about Wakanda forever.

really hoping we get the case we've all been on pins and needles waiting for a ruling on: Monsanto Company v. Durnell

BMX Bandit said:

---

really hoping we get the case we've all been on pins and needles waiting for a ruling on: Monsanto Company v. Durnell

---

Be kind man.

I mean, funny joke, but Rapier doing good work here.

Two boxes today so 2-4 opinions most likely.

nothing in my post is remotely a shot at Rapier108. bizarre take from you.

his work is much appreciated.

And away we go today with Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma

9-0 by Justice Jackson

SCOTUS reverses the lower court and remands.

Quote:

---

1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.

The court holds that Amarin, a drug maker, has failed to state a claim for active infringement of its patent.

---

This was the last case argued before the Court this term.

Just for the record, I didn't take it that way. Actually made me laugh.

Second serving today is Sripetch v. SEC.

9-0 by Justice Gorsuch

Thomas with a concurring opinion.

Quote:

---

Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.

Because traditional equitable principles do not require a showing of pecuniary loss to justify a disgorgement award and nothing in [the court's decision in Liu v. SEC] teaches otherwise, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed."

---

Last today is FCC v. AT&T

8-1 by Chief Justice Roberts

Thomas Dissents

Quote:

---

Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

This is a challenge to the FCC's enforcement structure, under which the FCC issues a forfeiture order without the carrier having the right to a jury trial. The court holds that the structure does not violate the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution because the forfeiture order does not definitively resolve the parties' legal obligations and the FCC's factual findings are not conclusive.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

And away we go today with Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma

9-0 by Justice Jackson

SCOTUS reverses the lower court and remands.

---

Using Google to assess this case ... is my understanding of this case correct?


Amarin developed a drug called Vascepa that was approved to lower triglycerides and filed a patent for this use.
The drug was later marketed to reduce cardiovascular risk and Amarin filed a new, separate patent for this use.

The original patent expired and Hikma requested an FDA approval to make a generic version of Vescepa and marketed it specifically to lower triglycerides but Amarin sued Hikma claiming they violated the 2nd patent.

The court claims Hikma did not violate that patent because they are only marketing the drug to be used to lower triglycerides -- aka the "skinny label".

BTKAG97 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

And away we go today with Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma

9-0 by Justice Jackson

SCOTUS reverses the lower court and remands.

---

Using Google to assess this case ... is my understanding of this case correct?


Amarin developed a drug called Vascepa that was approved to lower triglycerides and filed a patent for this use.
The drug was later marketed to reduce cardiovascular risk and Amarin filed a new, separate patent for this use.

The original patent expired and Hikma requested an FDA approval to make a generic version of Vescepa and marketed it specifically to lower triglycerides but Amarin sued Hikma claiming they violated the 2nd patent.

The court claims Hikma did not violate that patent because they are only marketing the drug to be used to lower triglycerides -- aka the "skinny label".

---

Yes, but greyer area than that.

Amarin says that there are a list of things that Hikma was doing that insinuated that generic Vascepa could reduce cardiovascular risk, but Hikma says that they didn't outright claim that generic Vascepa can reduce cardiovascular risk. Amarin says that these insinuations are "active induced infringement" of the patent covering Vascepa for reduction of cardiovascular risk. Himka and SCOTUS disagree.

SCOTUS says that the jurisprudence for induced infringement is very narrow, and covers three elements. One of these is " active steps . . . to encourage direct infringement,"

SCOTUS finds that none of Hikma's behavior meet that criteria of "active steps," and so Amarin did not identify a legitimate claim that Hikma was actively inducing patent infringement related to reduction of cardiovascular risk.

BMX Bandit said:

---

nothing in my post is remotely a shot at Rapier108. bizarre take from you.

his work is much appreciated.

---

No offense was intended BMX. My comment was also meant to be tongue in cheek.

Nothing but love for all you guys in here.

Carry on.