Supreme Court Decisions for Thursday, June 18th

1,974 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by Ag with kids
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 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, the Chief or Per Curiam.

As of this morning, there are 20 remaining cases.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two boxes, so 2-4 opinions likely.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
on who is likely writing these:

flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for doing these threads.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#1 for today is US v. Hemani

9-0ish by Justice Gorsuch

Alito has a concurrence, joined by Kagan.
Quote:

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.

The court rules that the government's prosecution of Ali Hemani, who admits that he uses marijuana a few times a week, for having a gun is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Gorusch emphasizes that the decision is a "narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm."

The court is also not addressing federal laws that make it a crime to have a gun after being convicted of a felony.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#2 today is Hunter v. US

8-1 by Justice Kagan

Thomas Dissents

Gorsuch concurs, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson
Quote:

(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.

The court today holds ("principally," Kagan writes) that an appeal waiver cannot be enforced "when it would result in a miscarriage of justice--meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute."

As usual, criminal cases make for strange bedfellows.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So far both opinions are short. 39 and 14 pages respectively.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
WestAustinAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WestAustinAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WestAustinAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last today is T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

5-4 by Justice Sotomayor joined Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Jackson

Barrett, Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch dissent

Quote:

Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

Last today is T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

5-4 by Justice Sotomayor joined Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Jackson

Barrett, Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch dissent

Quote:

Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.



That is a really weird makeup of concurrences/dissents.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep, I think we need to see if the apocalypse has started.

Jokes aside, 17 opinions left to announce. Probably going to get more than 1 opinion day next week.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Am I asking for too much to get an English translation of some of these opinions? I can't always process the legalese that comes across as contradictory or confusing.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Next opinion day will be Tuesday, June 23rd.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YouBet said:

Am I asking for too much to get an English translation of some of these opinions? I can't always process the legalese that comes across as contradictory or confusing.

I don't understand them a lot of the time myself... Here is a breakdown of the last opinion.


"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That rationale is similar to doctrines of exhaustion of remedies and final judgment rule.

Exhaustion of remedies is often cited in Administrative Procedure cases but can also apply here along with the final judgment rule. Don't waste federal court resources on a matter that the state courts can fix on their own, absent extraordinary circumstances justifying filing for a writ. (Which did not happen here.)
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Speaking of strange bedfellows


will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
ts5641
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

#1 for today is US v. Hemani

9-0ish by Justice Gorsuch

Alito has a concurrence, joined by Kagan.
Quote:

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.

The court rules that the government's prosecution of Ali Hemani, who admits that he uses marijuana a few times a week, for having a gun is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Gorusch emphasizes that the decision is a "narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm."

The court is also not addressing federal laws that make it a crime to have a gun after being convicted of a felony.



9-0? Did someone force ketanji to vote with the evil conservatives on the court?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's just a narrow opinion that really doesn't have a sharp political angle, so I think she didn't care enough to declare in screeching screed it meant the end of the republic this time.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

It's just a narrow opinion that really doesn't have a sharp political angle, so I think she didn't care enough to declare in screeching screed it meant the end of the republic this time.

My guess is she realized that since she had to write 15,798 pages of dissent MINIMUM for the rest of her single dissents, she wouldn't have time to write her own for this one.
You can turn off signatures, btw
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.