Sorry for not doing this live, got pulled away from the computer.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.
5-4 by Justice Gorsuch
Barrett, Roberts, Kagan, and Kavanaugh dissent.
"This case is a major dispute over personal jurisdiction that is, a court's power to hear a lawsuit against a defendant. The question before the court is whether a Pennsylvania court can hear a lawsuit brought against a Virginia-based railroad company by a Virginia man who worked for the railroad in Virginia and Ohio. The employee, Robert Mallory, blames his exposure to asbestos and other chemicals on the job for his diagnosis of colon cancer. To sue Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania, he relied on a state law that requires out-of-state corporations to register with the state as a condition of doing business there; under state law, that registration gives state courts jurisdiction over the companies. But the Pennsylvania state courts ruled that Pennsylvania's registration scheme violates the 14th Amendment's due process clause by giving state courts jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in all circumstances."
-----------------------------
Counterman v. Colorado
7-2 by Justice Kagan
Sotomayor and Gorsuch concur in part and in the judgement.
Thomas and Barrett dissent
"True threats" are not protected by the First Amendment. The question before the justices was how courts should determine what constitutes a "true threat." The defendant in the case, Billy Counterman, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking after he sent Facebook messages to a local musician that left her feeling "extremely scared." Counterman contends that, to determine whether speech is a "true threat," courts must consider the speaker's intent; the state, by contrast, argues that courts should apply an objective test that looks at whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence."
-----------------------------
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina redistricting)
6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts
Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissent
The decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.
"In this major election case, a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the "independent state legislature" theory the idea that the Constitution's elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state's legislature. In April, the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new 5-2 Republican majority, reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it lacked the power to review the challenges to the map."
-----------------------------
This is it for today. 7 cases remain.
Next opinion day is Thursday and likely Friday will be the last day.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.
5-4 by Justice Gorsuch
Barrett, Roberts, Kagan, and Kavanaugh dissent.
"This case is a major dispute over personal jurisdiction that is, a court's power to hear a lawsuit against a defendant. The question before the court is whether a Pennsylvania court can hear a lawsuit brought against a Virginia-based railroad company by a Virginia man who worked for the railroad in Virginia and Ohio. The employee, Robert Mallory, blames his exposure to asbestos and other chemicals on the job for his diagnosis of colon cancer. To sue Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania, he relied on a state law that requires out-of-state corporations to register with the state as a condition of doing business there; under state law, that registration gives state courts jurisdiction over the companies. But the Pennsylvania state courts ruled that Pennsylvania's registration scheme violates the 14th Amendment's due process clause by giving state courts jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in all circumstances."
-----------------------------
Counterman v. Colorado
7-2 by Justice Kagan
Sotomayor and Gorsuch concur in part and in the judgement.
Thomas and Barrett dissent
"True threats" are not protected by the First Amendment. The question before the justices was how courts should determine what constitutes a "true threat." The defendant in the case, Billy Counterman, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking after he sent Facebook messages to a local musician that left her feeling "extremely scared." Counterman contends that, to determine whether speech is a "true threat," courts must consider the speaker's intent; the state, by contrast, argues that courts should apply an objective test that looks at whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence."
-----------------------------
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina redistricting)
6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts
Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissent
The decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.
"In this major election case, a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the "independent state legislature" theory the idea that the Constitution's elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state's legislature. In April, the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new 5-2 Republican majority, reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it lacked the power to review the challenges to the map."
-----------------------------
This is it for today. 7 cases remain.
Next opinion day is Thursday and likely Friday will be the last day.
"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
