The Court will be releasing opinions today at 10AM eastern time.
There are 21 cases to be decided, not counting anything from the emergency docket.
The opinions are released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.
They are also released 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.
The ones in bold are the ones I find to be the most important remaining.
******************************
U.S. v. Skrmetti- Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Hewitt v. U.S.- Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act's enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act's enactment.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida- Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee "who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed" loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton- Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation- Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.- Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's products that is located within that circuit.
Gutierrez v. Saenz- Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff's injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Esteras v. U.S.- Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)'s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
Perttu v. Richards- Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas- (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.
Louisiana v. Callai-(1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
Riley v. Bondi- (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC- Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency's denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect."
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency- Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research- (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization- Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic- Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management- Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision.
Mahmoud v. Taylor- Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency- (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
There are 21 cases to be decided, not counting anything from the emergency docket.
The opinions are released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.
They are also released 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.
The ones in bold are the ones I find to be the most important remaining.
******************************
Hewitt v. U.S.- Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act's enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act's enactment.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton- Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech.
Gutierrez v. Saenz- Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff's injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Louisiana v. Callai-(1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
Riley v. Bondi- (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research- (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic- Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management- Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision.
Mahmoud v. Taylor- Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
"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
