Happy Thursday Everyone!
It’s another opinion day, and it’s finally June! This means we’ve officially hit the “anything up for grabs” period of opinion season. In layman’s terms, any opinion, whether controversial or not, could be released at any given opinion day, the odds increase every week for each case not released.
We will see you back here at 10amET for the first (and hopefully not the last) opinion of the day.
It’s another opinion day, and it’s finally June! This means we’ve officially hit the “anything up for grabs” period of opinion season. In layman’s terms, any opinion, whether controversial or not, could be released at any given opinion day, the odds increase every week for each case not released.
We will see you back here at 10amET for the first (and hopefully not the last) opinion of the day.
🙏55👍14🔥3🥱3
- Case: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
- Holding:The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
- Case: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
- Holding: : Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.
- Case: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n.
- Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of §108.02(15)(h)(2) to petitioners violates the First Amendment.
- Case: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
- Holding: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
- Case: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
- Holding: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.
- Holding:The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
- Case: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
- Holding: : Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.
- Case: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n.
- Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of §108.02(15)(h)(2) to petitioners violates the First Amendment.
- Case: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
- Holding: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
- Case: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
- Holding: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.
❤19👍12🙏3👏1
Sorry for the late posting, the channel was not allowing us to post for an extended period of time, reason unknown. That's all for today!
👍37🙏9
JUST IN: Supreme Court will have an opinion day Thursday June 12, at 10amET.
🙏43🤔5👍2👎1🙈1
BREAKING: Supreme Court allows DOGE to access social security records, in a 6-3 ruling with Justice Jackson and Sotomayor dissenting. Justice Kagan dissented but did not write. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf
🔥80👏27🎉11🙏6❤5
Happy Thursday SCOTUS fans!
It’s yet again, another opinion day at the Supreme Court in the month of June. As stated last week, all cases are up for grabs now that we’re in the final stretch of the Supreme Court term, when the justices plan to release all their opinions before they rise for summer recess.
Of course, barring any technical difficulties, we will be right back here at 10 AM ET as soon as the opinions are announced!
It’s yet again, another opinion day at the Supreme Court in the month of June. As stated last week, all cases are up for grabs now that we’re in the final stretch of the Supreme Court term, when the justices plan to release all their opinions before they rise for summer recess.
Of course, barring any technical difficulties, we will be right back here at 10 AM ET as soon as the opinions are announced!
👍32🙏9❤3🔥3
- Case: Rivers v. Guerrero
- Authored by: Justice Jackson
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a “second or successive application” properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1345_g3bh.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Jackson
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a “second or successive application” properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1345_g3bh.pdf
❤12
- Case: Commissioner v. Zuch
- Authored by: Justice Barrett
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson
- Holding: The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under §6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-416_l5gm.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Barrett
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson
- Holding: The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under §6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-416_l5gm.pdf
❤16👍5
- Case: Martin v. United States
- Authored by: Justice Gorsuch
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: The law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-362_mjn0.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Gorsuch
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: The law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-362_mjn0.pdf
🔥10❤5
- Case: Parrish v. United States
- Authored by: Justice Sotomayor
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.
- Holding: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-275_k6gc.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Sotomayor
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.
- Holding: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-275_k6gc.pdf
❤8🔥3
- Case: Soto v. United States
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: The CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: The CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf
🔥13❤3👍3👀1
- Case: A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
- Authored by: Chief Justice Roberts
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-249_a86c.pdf
- Authored by: Chief Justice Roberts
- Joined by: Unanimous Court
- Holding: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
- Dissent: None.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-249_a86c.pdf
🔥22❤8
That is the final opinion of the day, just like last Thursday, the Court released six opinion, SIX. Sounds like the Court is kicking it into gear during the final stretch of opinion days. Come back later this afternoon to find out if next Thursday will be an opinion day. Until then, that's all for today!
👍34🔥8❤4🎉4
JUST IN: Supreme Court will have another opinion day Wednesday June 18, at 10amET.
👍51😁6❤2
Supreme Court Announcements/Decisions
JUST IN: Supreme Court will have another opinion day Wednesday June 18, at 10amET.
Supreme Court has added this Friday as another opinion day this week. Same times both days, we will be here with you as the opinions are announced.
🔥44🙏27👌3
Good Wednesday Morning Everyone!
The justices convene this morning at 10amET to hand down one or more opinions in argued cases this term. We are coming down to the final two weeks of the term, when the justices normally rise for their summer recess. This means the major decisions still having yet to be released could be handed down any day. As always, when the opinion is released, it will be made available here immediately.
The justices convene this morning at 10amET to hand down one or more opinions in argued cases this term. We are coming down to the final two weeks of the term, when the justices normally rise for their summer recess. This means the major decisions still having yet to be released could be handed down any day. As always, when the opinion is released, it will be made available here immediately.
👍45🙏25👌3❤2🔥1
- Case: NRC v. Texas
- Authored by: Justice Kavanaugh
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson
- Holding:Because Texas and Fasken were not parties to the Commission’s licensing proceeding, they are not ennoscriptd to obtain judicial review of the Commission’s licensing decision.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Alito.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1300_b97c.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Kavanaugh
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson
- Holding:Because Texas and Fasken were not parties to the Commission’s licensing proceeding, they are not ennoscriptd to obtain judicial review of the Commission’s licensing decision.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Alito.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1300_b97c.pdf
❤19🤔5🙏3👎1
- Case: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Justice Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson.
- Holding: EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1229_c0ne.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Justice Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson.
- Holding: EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit.
- Dissent: Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1229_c0ne.pdf
🙏13❤6
- Case: Oklahoma v. EPA
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Jusitce Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
- Holding: EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional Circuit.
- Dissent: N/A.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1067_6j36.pdf
- Authored by: Justice Thomas
- Joined by: Justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Jusitce Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
- Holding: EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional Circuit.
- Dissent: N/A.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1067_6j36.pdf
🙏19
- Case: United States v. Skrmetti
- Authored by: Chief Justice Roberts
- Joined by: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Alito joined as to Parts I and II-B. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
- Holding: Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies
rational basis review.
- Dissent: Justice Sotmayor, joined by Jackson and Kagan. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
- Authored by: Chief Justice Roberts
- Joined by: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Alito joined as to Parts I and II-B. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
- Holding: Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies
rational basis review.
- Dissent: Justice Sotmayor, joined by Jackson and Kagan. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
- Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
👏26🙏8🏆6❤1
Still waiting on more opinion(s) btw, not done....yet.
🔥22🙏5👍4