Supreme Court Decisions for Friday, June 27th

23,161 Views | 203 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by aggiehawg
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Court will be releasing opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

There are 6 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.

These are the last six cases.

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.
"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
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

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.
Saw Turley this morning on FNC. He's unsure they will actually release that opinion today since it was added so late in the term.

OTOH, his best guesstimate was the Court crafting some sort of nationwide class action suit certification before a federal court can issue such a nationwide injunction.

We'll see.
Broseph
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does anyone know why they chose the birthright citizenship issue as the test for nationwide injunctions?
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Case# 1 today is Trump v. CASA

6-3 by Justice Barrett

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent.
Quote:

The government's applications to partially stay the district court's nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases are granted.

The court says that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."

At the end, the court says that the government's applications to partially stay the district court's preliminary injunctions "are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief with respect to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

The court instructs the district courts to "move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."

The court says that it is not deciding whether the executive order is constitutional.

From near the conclusion of Justice Barrett's opinion for the Court, on behalf of the six conservatives:

"federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

Alito says next that the ruling "will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following" the procedural protections for class certification.

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion notes that district courts do not have the last word on preliminary injunction requests -- courts of appeals and the Supreme Court can also weigh in, and "that order of operations will not change."
"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
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Broseph said:

Does anyone know why they chose the birthright citizenship issue as the test for nationwide injunctions?
Way this case presented itself in such a fashion to specifically isolate such a ruling? My WAG.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
as just about everyone predicted after oral arguments: fire up up the class action cases.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will see how many of the partisan district court judges actually comply. Many simply won't, imho.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

ACB:
Quote:

" We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Quote:

"federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:

as just about everyone predicted after oral arguments: fire up up the class action cases.
Yuck. I never did much with class action cases but knew attorneys who did. Getting a class certified can be a real b**** from their stories.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

ACB:
Quote:

" We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

LOL, good for Barrett to smack Jackson upside the head.
"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
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL. That is a b**** slap.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sotomayor reading from her dissent.

"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
MagnumLoad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Will see how many of the partisan district court judges actually comply. Many simply won't, imho.

If judges don't comply, their rulings should be ignored.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i don't think the difficulty in certifying a class matters for the purposes of these universal injunctions. courts can issue injunctions for the putative class
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:

i don't think the difficulty in certifying a class matters for the purposes of these universal injunctions. courts can issue injunctions for the putative class
Can they? Is that the wiggle room that Alito is objecting to in his concurrence? No certification required? Just an allegation of a putative class?

Confused about that.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Will see how many of the partisan district court judges actually comply. Many simply won't, imho.
Take the win, comrade.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does the SC have the power to punish lower judges or remove them? Or is impeachment by congress the only way?
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turley thread

“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Going to be here all morning if they're reading from their opinion on all these cases.
CDUB98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

ACB:
Quote:

" We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Quote:

"federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."



"*****, sit down and shut up!!"

Translating for us knuckle draggers.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

Going to be here all morning if they're reading from their opinion on all these cases.
Sotomayor is in love with the sound of her own voice.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

Does the SC have the power to punish lower judges or remove them? Or is impeachment by congress the only way?

No. Only Congress can remove an Article III judge.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The court says at the end that the executive order won't go into effect for 30 days.
"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
AgNav93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jackson is special needs kid. Serving as supreme court justice. What a time to be alive.
2040huck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

BMX Bandit said:

as just about everyone predicted after oral arguments: fire up up the class action cases.
Yuck. I never did much with class action cases but knew attorneys who did. Getting a class certified can be a real b**** from their stories.
This will be one of the easier ones to get certified. The damages are identical for each member of the class.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
from kavanagh:

Quote:

When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass
the same guy that said "lets wait a few years to rule on another gun case" when he punted the maryland AR-15 case
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2040huck said:

aggiehawg said:

BMX Bandit said:

as just about everyone predicted after oral arguments: fire up up the class action cases.
Yuck. I never did much with class action cases but knew attorneys who did. Getting a class certified can be a real b**** from their stories.
This will be one of the easier ones to get certified. The damages are identical for each member of the class.
And what are the damages? Damages are legal relief not equitable relief. There's a difference.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we finally get #2 today and it is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

6-3 by Justice Kavanagh

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch Dissent

Quote:

This was the challenge to the structure of a task force in the Department of Health and Human Services that made recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to the patients.

The court holds today that the appointment of the task force members is consistent with the Constitution.

The court holds specifically that the task force members can be removed at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations about preventive services are reviewable by the secretary before they take effect.

Thomas's dissent contends that the majority erroneously relied on a new theory that the government "invented" on appeal.
"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
laavispa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A quick scan of the opinion This jumped out at me . Perhaps the legal eagles here can explain the issue of equitable authority to an old guy.
Quote:

(b) The Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Courts lacked authority to issue universal injunc tions. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (holding that for a stay application to be granted, the applicant must make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits). The issuance of a universal in junction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits . . . in equity," 11, 1 Stat. 78, and still today, this statute "is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies," S. Bray & E. Sherwin, Remedies 442.
--------------
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek



TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management opinions

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the requirements for issuance of an injunction in equity is called irreparable harm. That means a party will be harmed in such a manner that later monetary damages cannot redress.

American version of equitable law stems from the British common law as opposed to statutory law passed by Congress.

HTH.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#3 today is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research.

6-3 by Justice Kagan

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissent

Gorsuch's dissent is 36 pages.
Quote:

This was the challenge to the federal program that subsidized low-cost telephone and internet services in, for example, rural areas and for libraries and schools.

There is a a "universal service fund" to receive and disburse the money for subsidies, and the FCC created a private corporation to manage the fund's operations.

Today the Supreme Court rejects a challenge to the universal-service scheme.

It holds that neither Congress's delegation of power to the FCC or the FCC's delegation of power to the private corporation violated a theory known as the nondelegation doctrine.

"Under our nondelegation precedents," Kagan writes, "Congress sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC to implement the universal-service contribution scheme. And the FCC, in turn, has retained all decision-making authority within that sphere, relying on the" corporation "only for nonbinding advice. Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution."
"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
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CDUB98 said:

TRM said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

ACB:
Quote:

" We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Quote:

"federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."



"*****, sit down and shut up!!"

Translating for us knuckle draggers.


Sounds like a crack in the girl squad up there.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.