The Court will be releasing opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

There are 26 remaining cases to be decided, assuming I counted the list correctly.

The opinions are released in 10 minute intervals and 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 or the Chief.

First opinion: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case).Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA's actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone. An unanimous opinion.

First today is FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
9-0 by Justice Kavanaugh.

Quote:

---

The court holds that the plaintiffs lack a legal right to challenge the FDA's actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone, the drug used in medication abortion.

---

As to what the case was about.

Quote:

---

The challenge was filed by doctors who are opposed to abortion and groups of doctors whose members are opposed to abortion, but the doctors themselves to not prescribe or use mifepristone, Kavanaugh writes, and the "FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything."

---

So no opinions today from Jackson or Barrett.

So they punted the first case.

Well, that's effectively a punt by the court, right? Plaintiff lacks standing means there's not any ruling on the abortion drug, right?

right. They have no standing.

I don't know when this Plaintiffs will learn you can't sit down when addressing the court. /dadjoke.

All the news outlets are breaking into normal programming to hail this as some major win for "abortion rights," even though the court did actually rule on the FDAs rule change.

Next up is Vidal v. Elster (Trump to Small Trademark)

9-0 by Justice Thomas

Quote:

---

The question before the court was whether the Patent and Trademark Office violated Steve Elster's First Amendment right when it refused to register the "Trump too small" mark because the Lanham Act bars registration of a trademark that identifies a living individual without his consent. The court holds that this restriction does not violate the First Amendment.

Court explains that its decision is narrow. "We hold only that history and tradition establish that the particular restriction before us . . . does not violate the First Amendment."

---

Next up is Starbucks v. McKinney by Justice Thomas

Looks to be 9-0ish

Quote:

---

The question in this case was whether the traditional four-factor test for a preliminary injunction governs requests by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act for a preliminary injunction while administrative enforcement proceedings against employers and labor unions for engaging in unfair trade practices are taking place. The court holds that it does, and it vacates and remands the Sixth Circuit's decision.

---

And we're done for the day.

Next opinion day is tomorrow.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Well, that's effectively a punt by the court, right? Plaintiff lacks standing means there's not any ruling on the abortion drug, right?

---

Standing is a big deal for the SCOTUS and it forms a large part of their jurisprudence. Standing was a hotly debated issue in this from the beginning. And it's unanimous. That's not a "punt" in SCOTUS world.

---

OutSTANDING analysis.


Sorry, more bad jokes.

This is my favorite part of some decisions (Vidal v Elster):

Quote:

---

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III. ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined that opinion in full; ROBERTS, C. J., and KAVANAUGH, J., joined all but Part III; and BARRETT, J., joined Parts I, IIA, and IIB. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and IIIB, and in which JACKSON, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

right. They have no standing.

I don't know when this Plaintiffs will learn you can't sit down when addressing the court. /dadjoke.

---

Delete thread. Ban User.
Yes, I Laughed.

The 5th Circuit has a problem

Indian Child Welfare Act: 5th Circuit finds TX has standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

Student loans: 5th Circuit finds individual plaintiffs have standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

Mifepristone: 5th Circuit finds doctors have standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 13, 2024

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The 5th Circuit has a problem

Indian Child Welfare Act: 5th Circuit finds TX has standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

Student loans: 5th Circuit finds individual plaintiffs have standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

Mifepristone: 5th Circuit finds doctors have standing; #SCOTUS unanimously reverses.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 13, 2024

---

Three cases over several terms is not a "problem" and they are still not overturned nearly as much as the 9th is.

Also, there were two student loan cases. The other had standing, which was actually the opposite ruling a lot of Court watchers expected. Most thought the case that ended up standing would get tossed, and the suit which got tossed would stand.

Three unanimous reversals on three different standing postures in quick succession shows the 5th Circuit has a problem with its approach to standing, especially when you consider the ideological makeup of the Circuit and Supreme Court.


If you disagree, OK. But I don't really see why the raw overall case numbers from the 9th Circuit, which has a massively larger caseload and is at ideological odds with the Supreme Court, has to do with it.

And congrats to Amarillo District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for having another of his cases reversed by SCOTUS

Not really the case. Ken Paxton has filed something like 30 federal suits against the communist administration in the 5th, and their overall reversal rate still pales in comparison to places like the 9th, 6th, and 8th. The 1st has also seen a sharp uptick in reversal rates since Reid packed it with low IQ partisans in robes.

FJB24 said:

---

Not really the case. Ken Paxton has filed something like 30 federal suits against the communist administration in the 5th, and their overall reversal rate still pales in comparison to places like the 9th, 6th, and 8th. The 1st has also seen a sharp uptick in reversal rates since Reid packed it with low IQ partisans in robes.

---

The 5th had a higher reversal rate last term than all of those courts and was on pace to do the same this year as of last night (obviously we have plenty more cases to go.)


And that's not particularly true about the 1st. The 1st only had 2 of 3 cases overturned last year and has only had 1 case reviewed in 2 of the last 4 terms. The 1st had one "bad term" (2021) and that was coming from pre-Biden cases when it was overall slightly more Conservative in makeup before some retirements filled under Biden. Both wings of the Court took the 1st Circuit on that term, with Breyer and Sotomayor having 2 of the 5 opinions

TXAggie2011 said:

---

FJB24 said:

---

Not really the case. Ken Paxton has filed something like 30 federal suits against the communist administration in the 5th, and their overall reversal rate still pales in comparison to places like the 9th, 6th, and 8th. The 1st has also seen a sharp uptick in reversal rates since Reid packed it with low IQ partisans in robes.

---

The 5th had a higher reversal rate last term than all of those courts and was on pace to do the same this year as of last night (obviously we have plenty more cases to go.)


And that's not particularly true about the 1st. The 1st only had 2 of 3 cases overturned last year and has only had 1 case reviewed in 2 of the last 4 terms. The 1st had one "bad term" (2021) and that was coming from pre-Biden cases when it was overall slightly more Conservative in makeup before some retirements filled under Biden. Both wings of the Court took the 1st Circuit on that term, with Breyer and Sotomayor having 2 of the 5 opinions

---

Nice...

Arguing that he was wrong about his point.

And the data presented is that they ONLY had TWO of THREE cases overturned.

So...if a 67% overturn rate is NOT a sharp uptick....then what was it previously?

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

FJB24 said:

---

Not really the case. Ken Paxton has filed something like 30 federal suits against the communist administration in the 5th, and their overall reversal rate still pales in comparison to places like the 9th, 6th, and 8th. The 1st has also seen a sharp uptick in reversal rates since Reid packed it with low IQ partisans in robes.

---

The 5th had a higher reversal rate last term than all of those courts and was on pace to do the same this year as of last night (obviously we have plenty more cases to go.)


And that's not particularly true about the 1st. The 1st only had 2 of 3 cases overturned last year and has only had 1 case reviewed in 2 of the last 4 terms. The 1st had one "bad term" (2021) and that was coming from pre-Biden cases when it was overall slightly more Conservative in makeup before some retirements filled under Biden. Both wings of the Court took the 1st Circuit on that term, with Breyer and Sotomayor having 2 of the 5 opinions

---

Nice...

Arguing that he was wrong about his point.

And the data presented is that they ONLY had TWO of THREE cases overturned.

So...if a 67% overturn rate is NOT a sharp uptick....then what was it previously?

---

The 1st's reversal rate is since 2007 is 61%. Even if 67% were a "sharp uptick", it's still below the court's average over that time of 71%, and below the 5th's (which is 74% and was just 88% in this last term.)

Small sample sizes, year to year, of course.