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

There are 8 remaining cases to be decided, but possibly only 6 opinions left.

Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Chevron) could be decided together as could Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton.

The opinions are no longer released in 10 minute intervals (this was recently changed), but soon after the preceding one, and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

They are released in order of 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.

The Court has also announced that Monday, July 1st will be an opinion day, which should be the last. They will announce if it is this morning once all the opinions for the day are released.

So here we go again, again.

**************************************

Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,- Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System- Whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act claim "first accrues" under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to "suffer[] legal wrong" or be "adversely affected or aggrieved."

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC- Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton- Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

Fischer v. U.S.- Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson- Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Trump v. U.S.- Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Mornin', dear. As you stated we will get some opinions of major substance today. But after last night's debacle of a debate, the optics of the Court acting politically by delaying the immunity case is a minor point now.

I believe they were waiting for the debate to be over before springing the big one. Today might be the day. Rip the bandaid right off.

It would be shocking if Trump v. US was today. It has to be one of the most complex issues the Court has faced in a long time, and it involves Trump, which adds extra drama to it. Regardless of the opinion, there is a high probability of multiple concurrences and dissents, possibly some opinion which do both, and it was the last they heard for the term. I'm sure they wish this case had been brought much earlier so they could have had plenty of time to work on it.

If any other case is held until Monday, I would expect it to be Fischer v. U.S.

Of course, watch us get one or both of those today and that's it.

Probably right on this.

Quote:

---

If any other case is held until Monday, I would expect it to be Fischer v. U.S.

---

And that really isn't that hard of a case. Compared to the fine line between a bribe happening before an official act versus a gratuity that occurs after an official act, using a financial crimes statute for Jan 6ers should have been a piece of cake, in my view.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If any other case is held until Monday, I would expect it to be Fischer v. U.S.

---

And that really isn't that hard of a case. Compared to the fine line between a bribe happening before an official act versus a gratuity that occurs after an official act, using a financial crimes statute for Jan 6ers should have been a piece of cake, in my view.

---

If correct, what could be holding it up may be the dissents. I wouldn't put it past certain justices to take their time finishing it up just to drag it out for a little while longer.

Truly, who knows. If the Supreme Court is one thing, it is unpredictable.

Aren't there 7 cases left? (Potentially 5 opinions). I thought there were 11 cases left yesterday and they issued 4 opinions.

Two boxes, so 2-4 opinions.

BTHOB said:

---

Aren't there 7 cases left? (Potentially 5 opinions). I thought there were 11 cases left yesterday and they issued 4 opinions.

---

I have two listed together since they are likely going to be decided together, but they are separate cases . Both are the cases which could overturn Chevron.

Relentless v. Department of Commerce

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

First today is City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

The 9th Circuit is reversed.

Quote:

---

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

The court holds that it does not need to reconsider its decision in Robinson v. California, in which the court held in 1962 that states could not criminalize the status of narcotic addiction. Robinson, Gorsuch writes, "cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit's course." In Robinson, he explains, the court "expressly recognized the 'broad power' States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws."

The public camping ordinances at issue in this case, Gorsuch reasons, "are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson."

Gorsuch writes that "Homelessness is complex" and its "causes are many." But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job "for assessing those causes and devising those responses."

In a concurring opinion, Thomas contends that Robinson was wrongly decided.

---

How the hell do 3 SCOTUS justices vote in favor of allowing homeless to camp out wherever they like

Artorias said:

---

How the hell do 3 SCOTUS justices vote in favor of allowing homeless to camp out wherever they like

---

Obama and Biden nominated them.

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

The 9th Circuit is reversed.

Quote:

---

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

The court holds that it does not need to reconsider its decision in Robinson v. California, in which the court held in 1962 that states could not criminalize the status of narcotic addiction. Robinson, Gorsuch writes, "cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit's course." In Robinson, he explains, the court "expressly recognized the 'broad power' States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws."

The public camping ordinances at issue in this case, Gorsuch reasons, "are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson."

Gorsuch writes that "Homelessness is complex" and its "causes are many." But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job "for assessing those causes and devising those responses."

In a concurring opinion, Thomas contends that Robinson was wrongly decided.

---

---

Hallelujah. Had a bum who was pissing and crapping himself in front of downtown building I own. He pretty much ran out the renter. Police would do some stuff but said their hands were tied because cruel and unusual punishment bull*****

Sotomayor bleeding all over the bench again so might be a while before we get another opinion.

Rapier108 said:

---

Sotomayor bleeding all over the bench again so might be a while before we get another opinion.

---

She's had a rough end of the term being on the wrong side. She haz the sads again. Thank heavens it is now too late to replce her if she quits.

The oral argument on this one strongly suggested Kagan would be in the majority.

Also should point out that even the liberal cities on the west coast were begging the SC to overturn.

Artorias said:

---

How the hell do 3 SCOTUS justices vote in favor of allowing homeless to camp out wherever they like

---

Female justices.

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

6-3 and 6-2 by Chief Justice Roberts (Jackson is recused in Loper Bright)

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

Chevron is overruled

Quote:

---

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency as acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

Thomas and Gorsuch have concurring opinions.

Chevron, Roberts explains, "defies the command of" the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing federal administrative agencies, "that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA."

Chevron's presumption that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies "is misguided," Roberts explains, "because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Roberts notes that today's decision does "not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful--including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself--are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology."

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

Finally!

The Administrative State is killing our country.

Wow!

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Glad I wasted all that time learning the Chevron doctrine

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Hawg, or another lawyer, please tell us morons how important this is to our future liberty and how much it will cut down on the administrative state.

UncivilLaw on YouTube is having a dance party in his office. The happiest I've ever seen the guy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Sotomayor bleeding all over the bench again so might be a while before we get another opinion.

---

She's had a rough end of the term being on the wrong side. She haz the sads again. Thank heavens it is now too late to replce her if she quits.

---

How do you figure. Dem president and a majority in the senate. If they could get through Barrett in a lot less time than we have left in the term, why couldn't the Dems do the same. Especially after last night there will be a lot of pressure on her to step down next month

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Hawg, or another lawyer, please tell us morons how important this is to our future liberty and how much it will cut down on the administrative state.

---

Huge! Regulatory tyranny is over. Businesses and individuals can seek redress in the courts without being denied at the courthouse steps under the deference of courts to the regulatory agency under Chevron.

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Hawg, or another lawyer, please tell us morons how important this is to our future liberty and how much it will cut down on the administrative state.

---

Under the test developed in Chevron, courts deferred to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as it was "reasonable". A low bar to meet. This test gave agencies broad interpretation powers, and they usually prevailed.

Overturning Chevron places a much higher standard of review on agency actions, and greatly limits their power and ability to act outside of legislation.

Under the Chevron doctrine, agencies could not only interpret laws which are vague, they were allowed to determine whether a law was vague or not.

So if some agency dimwit decided they didn't like a law all they had to do was say that the law was vague and just create a new rule. Courts were required to defer to the agency interpretations. The EPA and ATF love doing this.

Under the new rule, the executive branch interpretation would still carry great weight, but it will now be up to the judicial branch to interpret the law.

Gator_2 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Hawg, or another lawyer, please tell us morons how important this is to our future liberty and how much it will cut down on the administrative state.

---

Under the test developed in Chevron, courts deferred to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as it was "reasonable". A low bar to meet. This test gave agencies broad interpretation powers, and they usually prevailed.

Overturning Chevron places a much higher standard of review on agency actions, and greatly limits their power and ability to act outside of legislation.

---

The real pressure will now be on Congress to actually right better laws. Can they do it in this era? I am highly skeptical.

Kansas Kid said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Sotomayor bleeding all over the bench again so might be a while before we get another opinion.

---

She's had a rough end of the term being on the wrong side. She haz the sads again. Thank heavens it is now too late to replce her if she quits.

---

How do you figure. Dem president and a majority in the senate. If they could get through Barrett in a lot less time than we have left in the term, why couldn't the Dems do the same. Especially after last night there will be a lot of pressure on her to step down next month

---

Schumer doesn't have the power that McConnel did first off. Second the Senate Judiciary Committee has several heavy hitters in Cruz and Kennedy who have been dismantling Biden's judicial nominees into pools of goo. Not enough time left to get through grueling confirmation hearings.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

So this can go a long way to reign in the ridiculous overreach by the EPA ?

Max Stonetrail said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

So this can go a long way to reign in the ridiculous overreach by the EPA ?

---

Every federal agency, not just the EPA.

A good day!

Kansas Kid said:

---

Gator_2 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Second today is Relentless v. Department of Commerce & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

by Chief Justice Roberts

Chevron is overruled

---

Yee-haw!!!

---

Hawg, or another lawyer, please tell us morons how important this is to our future liberty and how much it will cut down on the administrative state.

---

Under the test developed in Chevron, courts deferred to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as it was "reasonable". A low bar to meet. This test gave agencies broad interpretation powers, and they usually prevailed.

Overturning Chevron places a much higher standard of review on agency actions, and greatly limits their power and ability to act outside of legislation.

---

The real pressure will now be on Congress to actually right better laws. Can they do it in this era? I am highly skeptical.

---

They've been terrible at it for decades. Why change now?