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

There are 10 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.

Edit: Was away from my desk so was a little late starting the thread and the first two decisions had already been announced.

First today is Hewitt v. US

5-4 by Justice Jackson

Thomas, Barrett, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.

Quote:

---

This is the case about the First Step Act, which eliminated a mandatory minimum penalty for certain firearm offenders. It provides that the act applies if a sentence has not yet been imposed as of the date of the enactment.

The question before the court was what happens when an offender is sentenced before the enactment of the First Step Act but the sentence was then vacated.

Looks like Part IV, which the CJ and Gorsuch don't join, is focused on legislative/enactment history, which conservative justices don't like.

The court today holds that a sentence "has not been imposed" for purposes of the provision and the act's more lenient penalties therefore apply.

Alito says that the court "disfigures the Act in order to reach a different result" because the defendants in this case "do not come close to meeting" the requirement that they had not yet been sentenced when the act was passed in 2018. (They were sentenced in 2010.)

---

Next is Medina v. Planned Parenthood

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent.

Quote:

---

This is the case about whether there is a private right to bring a lawsuit challenging South Carolina's decision to end Planned Parenthood's participation in the state's Medicaid program. (Federal law already generally prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for abortion.)

The court holds today that Medicaid laws do not clearly give an unambiguous right to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit to challenge the termination.

---

Quote:

---

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent.

---

Always a good thing

#3 is Gutierriez v. Saenz.

6-3 by Justice Sotomayor

Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch

Quote:

---

This is a case about a Texas inmate's efforts to obtain DNA testing of evidence that he says will show he was not at the scene of the murder he was convicted of committing.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that Gutierrez could not bring a lawsuit becuase even if Texas's DNA procedures were unconstitutional, the prosecutor "would be unlikely to turn over the physical evidence for DNA testing."

The court holds that the Fifth Circuit's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Reed v. Goertz.

---

All the commies on Scotusblog (none of the staff in this case) always cream themselves whenever the 5th Circuit gets reversed.

Nothing too significant today, other than that tomorrow will be the last day per CJ Roberts statement.

Blockbuster finale still on tap.

That being said, I think this is the right call.

And last today is Riley v. Bondi

5-4 Justice Alito

Sotomayor and Gorsuch dissent in part, Kagan and Jackson dissent in full.

Quote:

---

Riley is about whether and when a noncitizen who overstayed his visa and has an order for his deportation can challenge an order denying his request for withholding of removal (an order that allows him to be removed from the United States but not to a country where he could be persecuted or tortured). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the petition for review filed by Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, came too late because it was not filed 30 days after an immigration officer issued a final removal order in his case, even if his request for withholding of removal was not resolved for more than a year after that.

The court today throws out the Fourth Circuit's decision. It holds that the BIA's order in an order about withholding of removal only is not a "final order of removal" and therefore the 30 day filing deadline cannot be satisfied by filing a petition for review within 30 days.

And the court holds that the 30-day filing deadline is not jurisdictional -- that is, the government can waive it.

---

Chief Justice Roberts has announced that tomorrow will be the last day of the term so we should get all 6 remaining cases tomorrow, barring something unusual happening.

Also possible one of the emergency docket cases, other than Trump v. CASA makes an appearance.

Here are the remaining decisions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trump v. CASA- Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration's Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.

Quote:

---

The court today throws out the Fourth Circuit's decision. It holds that the BIA's order in an order about withholding of removal only is not a "final order of removal" and therefore the 30 day filing deadline cannot be satisfied by filing a petition for review within 30 days.

And the court holds that the 30-day filing deadline is not jurisdictional -- that is, the government can waive it.

---

Part of the problem with deportations being civil and not criminal matters usually. Waiver of personal jurisdiction is applicable to a defendant in a civil case.

But this is a confusing ruling to me. Withholding of removal is discretionary, sure but it is still falls within being a final order, IMO.

I feel so dumb.

Can someone go through these quickly and explain the implications in super-dumbed down simple terms? TIA if you'll do it, otherwise I'll get off my butt and read up. Much prefer being lazy.

I can safely assume, based on my way of thinking, that if the 3 brain-trust political hacks on the court oppose the outcome, it was the preferred decision.

Are they expected to make a decision about nation wide decisions coming from district court judges?

45-70Ag said:

---

Are they expected to make a decision about nation wide decisions coming from district court judges?

---

Your answer is above.

Helps to read.

Birth right citizenship should be interesting.

birthright citizenship part will likely be nothing more than a footnote (figuratively, not literally.) The issue before them now it's just the universal injunction, not the merits of birthright citizenship

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

45-70Ag said:

---

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

---

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but, a Trump win would result in localized injunctions vs national. So only the parties involved in the in the case would be impacted.

If a person is challenging the constitutionality of being deported, there would not be a way for the judge to apply a nationwide injunction. It would only apply to that singular person.

Appreciate clarification if I am understanding it incorrectly.

Robert C. Christian said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

---

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but, a Trump win would result in localized injunctions vs national. So only the parties involved in the in the case would be impacted.

If a person is challenging the constitutionality of being deported, there would not be a way for the judge to apply a nationwide injunction. It would only apply to that singular person.

Appreciate clarification if I am understanding it incorrectly.

---

If SCOTUS doesn't put a stop to nationwide injunctions the Republicans are going to injunction the heck out of the next Dem president.

techno-ag said:

---

Robert C. Christian said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

---

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but, a Trump win would result in localized injunctions vs national. So only the parties involved in the in the case would be impacted.

If a person is challenging the constitutionality of being deported, there would not be a way for the judge to apply a nationwide injunction. It would only apply to that singular person.

Appreciate clarification if I am understanding it incorrectly.

---

If SCOTUS doesn't put a stop to nationwide injunctions the Republicans are going to injunction the heck out of the next Dem president.

---

Except most attempts will get rejected, usually for "lack of standing."

Rapier108 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Robert C. Christian said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

---

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but, a Trump win would result in localized injunctions vs national. So only the parties involved in the in the case would be impacted.

If a person is challenging the constitutionality of being deported, there would not be a way for the judge to apply a nationwide injunction. It would only apply to that singular person.

Appreciate clarification if I am understanding it incorrectly.

---

If SCOTUS doesn't put a stop to nationwide injunctions the Republicans are going to injunction the heck out of the next Dem president.

---

Except most attempts will get rejected, usually for "lack of standing."

---

With the lib judges yes. But I think there are more Republican appointed judges at the moment.

Besides the lesson learned here is to slow the President's agenda. Guaranteed that Republicans are taking note. This will continue if it's not stopped here.

45-70Ag said:

---

What would be a win for Trump in the ruling?

---

depends on what you consider a "win."

I think they will get a ruling that greatly scales back the universal injunctions, so that is a win.

but in this specific case, I don't know that there is win to be had at this point. at least 5 justices seem to think in a class action context you could get that same relief. so if Trump loses here, you are going to see class actions quickly pop up and get the injunctions in place.

so its a win from overall position moving forward but nothing gained in this case.


also, this ruling won't even apply to most universal injunctions. most are done in administrative procedure act cases where courts specifically have the power to issue TROs to stop agencies from acting.

I haven't had time to look at the actual decision but on the surface the Gutierrez case is interesting. A group of guys participated in a robbery in which an elderly woman was stabbed to death with two different screwdrivers.

He was convicted under law of parties. He admitted to being there and participating in the robbery, but denies being one of the people who used the screwdrivers. His aim is not to prove his innocence but to try to eventually earn a rehearing to get his sentence changed. Even if the DNA is tested and it doesn't show his DNA on the screwdrivers it may not change much of anything. He was still convicted of capital murder for participating in the robbery itself.

Seems like this case was really going to have the impact of helping other defendants down the road in terms of DNA access but probably not this particular guy.