- Case: Case v. Montana
- Author of Opinion: Justice Kagan
- Joined by: Unanimous with concurrences.
- Dissented: None.
- Holding: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdf
- Author of Opinion: Justice Kagan
- Joined by: Unanimous with concurrences.
- Dissented: None.
- Holding: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdf
❤19
- Case: Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections.
- Author of Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts.
- Joined by: Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.
- Dissented: Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor.
- Holding: As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf
- Author of Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts.
- Joined by: Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.
- Dissented: Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor.
- Holding: As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf
🙏34💯15❤5🔥2
As a reminder, we don’t know what opinions will come on certain days because they are not announced ahead of time. There was a lot of speculation and confusion regarding why the Supreme Court has not announced a decision on the widely anticipated tariffs case. Simply put, nobody knows when it will be released, there is no insider knowledge. This is why we are always consistent. When we say we don’t know what opinions will come, we don’t speculate to you about which opinions will be released. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. We just want to make sure that everybody is on the same page and that there is no confusion regarding this matter.
👍57❤11🙏3🔥1🤨1
JUST IN - Supreme Court will release one or more opinions in argued cases on Tuesday Jan. 20.
1❤48👀24👍6🤡3🥱1🆒1
Good Tuesday Morning Everyone!
It’s yet another opinion day at the Supreme Court, the justices will announce one or more opinions in argued cases so far this term. As we’ve said before, we don’t know which cases will be released, but we will be sure to send them here when they are.
Following that, the justices will hear one case for oral argument:
Wilford v. Lopez - This involves a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms from private property open to the public, with the exception of expressly given permission from property owners.
If this case interests you, you can listen live with the link below or you can search YouTube for a comparable version from a participating network: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It’s yet another opinion day at the Supreme Court, the justices will announce one or more opinions in argued cases so far this term. As we’ve said before, we don’t know which cases will be released, but we will be sure to send them here when they are.
Following that, the justices will hear one case for oral argument:
Wilford v. Lopez - This involves a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms from private property open to the public, with the exception of expressly given permission from property owners.
If this case interests you, you can listen live with the link below or you can search YouTube for a comparable version from a participating network: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍20🙏5❤1🥱1
- Case: Berk v. Choy
- Author of Opinion: Justice Barrett
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.
-Dissented: none.
- Holding: Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-440_1b82.pdf
- Author of Opinion: Justice Barrett
- Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.
-Dissented: none.
- Holding: Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-440_1b82.pdf
❤18🔥3
- Case: Ellingburg v. United States
- Author of Opinion: Justice Kavanaugh
- Joined by: Unanimous
-Dissented: None.
- Holding: Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause requires evaluating whether the law imposes a criminal or penal sanction as opposed to a civil remedy. That question is one “of statutory construction” that requires the Court to “consider
the statute’s text and its structure.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 92
(quotation marks omitted).
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-482_d1oe.pdf
- Author of Opinion: Justice Kavanaugh
- Joined by: Unanimous
-Dissented: None.
- Holding: Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause requires evaluating whether the law imposes a criminal or penal sanction as opposed to a civil remedy. That question is one “of statutory construction” that requires the Court to “consider
the statute’s text and its structure.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 92
(quotation marks omitted).
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-482_d1oe.pdf
❤18🔥3
- Case: Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton
- Author of Opinion: Justice Alito
- Joined by: Unanimous
- Dissented: None.
- Holding: Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-808_lkgn.pdf
- Author of Opinion: Justice Alito
- Joined by: Unanimous
- Dissented: None.
- Holding: Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).
- Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-808_lkgn.pdf
❤12🔥4
Good Wednesday Morning Everyone!
Today the justices will sit for one case for oral argument. There is no opinion announcements this morning.
Trump v. Cook - A case involving whether to put on hold a lower court decision that barred President Trump from firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, for alleged misconduct.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live or you can search YouTube for a stream from a participating network: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Today the justices will sit for one case for oral argument. There is no opinion announcements this morning.
Trump v. Cook - A case involving whether to put on hold a lower court decision that barred President Trump from firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, for alleged misconduct.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here is a link to listen live or you can search YouTube for a stream from a participating network: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
🙏50👍13❤6⚡1