BREAKING: Supreme Court will allow the Texas immigration law to remain in effect pending litigation in the lower court. Justice Barrett and Kavanaugh concurred in the decision. Justice Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24487693/23a814-and-23a815-march-19.pdf
👍8
ICYMI (we had technical difficulties this morning sorry for no opinion announcement): Here were the opinions announced this morning. One is from Justice Gorsuch in FBI v FIKRE, which was a unanimous decision. The second case is from Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined. The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissented. That case is called Wilkinson v Garland.
Here is the link to both opinions:
FBI: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1178_p8k0.pdf
Wilkinson: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666_bq7c.pdf
Here is the link to both opinions:
FBI: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1178_p8k0.pdf
Wilkinson: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666_bq7c.pdf
👍3
JUST IN: Fmr President Trump has submitted his brief on the merits to the Supreme Court about whether he enjoys Presidential immunity for official acts taken while he was President. All the amicus briefs in support of petitioners have been filed. Respondent’s briefs on the merits, as well as Amicus briefs in support of respondents are due by April 8. The case is scheduled to be argued Thursday, April 25 at 10 AM ET.
Here is a link to the docket for safe access: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html
Fmr President Trump’s Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf
Here is a link to the docket for safe access: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html
Fmr President Trump’s Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf
❤3🙏2
Happy Wednesday Everyone!
The justices will convene this morning to hear two cases for oral argument.
The first case is Gonzalez v. Trevino, which deals with a Texas woman who wishes to sue three city officials for retaliatory actions. The lawsuit comes after Gonzalez was charged with tampering with governmental records, which were later dropped. She argues that the officials retaliated against her for criticism she engaged in with the city manager.
The second case is Texas v. New Mexico And Colorado, which deals with a federal dispute over Rio Grande water.
Arguments begin at 10amET. Here is a link to listen live as they happen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The justices will convene this morning to hear two cases for oral argument.
The first case is Gonzalez v. Trevino, which deals with a Texas woman who wishes to sue three city officials for retaliatory actions. The lawsuit comes after Gonzalez was charged with tampering with governmental records, which were later dropped. She argues that the officials retaliated against her for criticism she engaged in with the city manager.
The second case is Texas v. New Mexico And Colorado, which deals with a federal dispute over Rio Grande water.
Arguments begin at 10amET. Here is a link to listen live as they happen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍6🏆2✍1👎1👏1
Good morning Supreme Court fans, the justices return to the bench to hear two cases for oral argument.
The first case is Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, which deals with Native American tribes healthcare and whether they are ennoscriptd to funding from IHS (Indian Health Service) to cover certain costs of the services. This case is also consolidated with Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. Northern Arapaho Tribe.
The second case is Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, which involves the 60-day deadline in the “Merit Systems Protection Board” is jurisdictional or not. The justices will decide just that, given others circuits’ noting it’s non-jurisdictional.
Justices convene at 10amET for arguments, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The first case is Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, which deals with Native American tribes healthcare and whether they are ennoscriptd to funding from IHS (Indian Health Service) to cover certain costs of the services. This case is also consolidated with Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. Northern Arapaho Tribe.
The second case is Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, which involves the 60-day deadline in the “Merit Systems Protection Board” is jurisdictional or not. The justices will decide just that, given others circuits’ noting it’s non-jurisdictional.
Justices convene at 10amET for arguments, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍2✍1👎1🔥1
Happy Tuesday Everyone!
It’s a controversial day at the Supreme Court, where the justices will hear a set of cases [2] consolidated involving mifepristone. The cases are called FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine. The justices will first consider whether the petitioners in the case had standing to bring the original complaint. If standing is established, the justices could put signifant limits on the access to the abortion pill, which is the most commonly used pill to terminate a pregnancy.
This case marks the first abortion related case that the justices have taken up since the Dobbs ruling in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Arguments in the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It’s a controversial day at the Supreme Court, where the justices will hear a set of cases [2] consolidated involving mifepristone. The cases are called FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine. The justices will first consider whether the petitioners in the case had standing to bring the original complaint. If standing is established, the justices could put signifant limits on the access to the abortion pill, which is the most commonly used pill to terminate a pregnancy.
This case marks the first abortion related case that the justices have taken up since the Dobbs ruling in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Arguments in the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
🙏6👍5👎2❤1✍1
Good morning everyone!
Justices will convene to hear to cases for oral argument this morning. One is Erlinger v. United States which involves jury trials and certain constitutional requirements for convictions. Second case is Connelly v. United States, which involves life insurance policies when dealing with shareholders and potential deaths.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Justices will convene to hear to cases for oral argument this morning. One is Erlinger v. United States which involves jury trials and certain constitutional requirements for convictions. Second case is Connelly v. United States, which involves life insurance policies when dealing with shareholders and potential deaths.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍9❤1✍1
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases on both Friday April 12, and Tuesday April 16. Which means we will be given at least two opinions from the Court between the two days. Opinions will be posted to the Supreme Court website after announcement from the bench!
👍25🙏8
Good morning everyone, although there aren’t any scheduled arguments this morning, the Supreme Court will still be convening at 10amET to deliver one or more opinions in argued cases this term. As soon we have the opinion, we will bring it right here as always! See you in a few hours!
👍19🙏14❤2
NEW: The first opinion of the day from the Supreme Court, it is a unanimous decision from Justice Barrett. The case is Sheetz v El Dorado County, about a traffic impact fee levied on Sheetz.
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1074_bqmd.pdf
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1074_bqmd.pdf
✍1👍1
NEW: The second opinion of the day from the Supreme Court, it is also a unanimous decision by Justice Sotomayor. The case is called MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE CORP v.
MOAB PARTNERS, L. P.
Here is the link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf
MOAB PARTNERS, L. P.
Here is the link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf
✍2👍1
NEW: Here is the final decision of the day from the Supreme Court, it is once again a unanimous decision from Chief Justice Roberts. The case is called Bissonette v LePage Bakeries, which involved the Federal Arbitration Act.
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf
✍2
That’s all for today, all three decisions were unanimous, something we don’t see everyday. See you all on Monday!
❤22
NEW: Supreme Court has added *another* opinion day next week. According to the SCOTUS website, Wednesday April 17 is now scheduled as an opinion day, alongside Tuesday April 16. This indicates at least two or more opinions being released by the Court in that time frame.
❤21🤔6
Happy Monday everyone, hope you all had a great weekend!
The justices will convene this morning for their April argument sitting, which is the last of the term. They will hear two cases for oral argument, Snyder v. United States and Chiaverini v. Napoleon, OH.
The first case is Snyder v. United States, which involves federal bribery laws and government officials. the justices will consider whether federal bribery statutes criminalize the acceptance of payment for actions already undertaken by a government official, absent any prearranged agreement to do such for payment.
The second case is Chiaverini v. Nepoleon, OH, which involves an allegation of malicious prosecution, and whether such claim can proceed despite the establishment of probable cause.
Arguments for the cases begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The justices will convene this morning for their April argument sitting, which is the last of the term. They will hear two cases for oral argument, Snyder v. United States and Chiaverini v. Napoleon, OH.
The first case is Snyder v. United States, which involves federal bribery laws and government officials. the justices will consider whether federal bribery statutes criminalize the acceptance of payment for actions already undertaken by a government official, absent any prearranged agreement to do such for payment.
The second case is Chiaverini v. Nepoleon, OH, which involves an allegation of malicious prosecution, and whether such claim can proceed despite the establishment of probable cause.
Arguments for the cases begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍9
BREAKING: Supreme Court allows Idaho law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents to take effect, while the legal process of the injunction appeal continues. Justice Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented.
Here is a link to the order/opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf#page=27
Here is a link to the order/opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf#page=27
👍33
Supreme Court Announcements/Decisions
BREAKING: Supreme Court allows Idaho law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents to take effect, while the legal process of the injunction appeal continues. Justice Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. Here is a link to the order/opinions:…
Fun Fact: This an order from the emergency docket (coined as the shadow docket), so the vote isn’t necessarily public. An interesting fact relating to this specific one is every associate justice on the Court voiced an opinion, whether through a written concurrence/dissent, or a sign on to either. Chief Justice Roberts is the only one on the bench who did not voice an opinion, meaning we don’t know officially if this was a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. That’s all!
🆒6👍5❤2🙉1
Happy Tuesday Everyone!
The justices will announce one or more opinions in argued cases this term starting at 10amET.
The justices will then convene to hear Fischer v United States, a case that has sparked media attention for its close connections to the criminal case of former President Trump.
The case involves Joseph W. Fischer, who is challenging his convictions for his actions related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The justices will consider whether a law (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) which strictly prohibits the obstruction of congressional investigations and inquires, was used inproperly when charging such defendants related to the attack.
The outcome of this case could have implications on the criminal case of former President Trump, who is charged twice under this count. A decision in this case is expected in June.
Arguments for the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The justices will announce one or more opinions in argued cases this term starting at 10amET.
The justices will then convene to hear Fischer v United States, a case that has sparked media attention for its close connections to the criminal case of former President Trump.
The case involves Joseph W. Fischer, who is challenging his convictions for his actions related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The justices will consider whether a law (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) which strictly prohibits the obstruction of congressional investigations and inquires, was used inproperly when charging such defendants related to the attack.
The outcome of this case could have implications on the criminal case of former President Trump, who is charged twice under this count. A decision in this case is expected in June.
Arguments for the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍16❤3
NEW: Here is the first opinion of the day from the Supreme Court, it is a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Jackson. The case is called Rudisill v McDonough.
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf
NEW: Here is the final opinion of the day from the Supreme Court, it is a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas. The case is called Devillier v Texas.
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf
Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf
❤6
Happy Wednesday Everyone!
The justices will convene to announce one or more opinions in argued cases, and hear one case for oral argument this morning.
The case is called Thornell v. Jones, which involves a deathrow inmate who made claims of ineffective counsel at sentencing. The justices will consider whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated Supreme Court precedent Strickland. The question presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit violate this Court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing Strickland prejudice when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the State's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief?
Arguments for the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The justices will convene to announce one or more opinions in argued cases, and hear one case for oral argument this morning.
The case is called Thornell v. Jones, which involves a deathrow inmate who made claims of ineffective counsel at sentencing. The justices will consider whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated Supreme Court precedent Strickland. The question presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit violate this Court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing Strickland prejudice when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the State's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief?
Arguments for the case begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍6👎1