Supreme Court Decisions for Thursday, May 21st

1,660 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by BMX Bandit
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Court will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Below are the list of what I see as the biggest cases remaining for the term.

Trump v. Slaughter- Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled. Also whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox- Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Trump v. Cook- Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

U.S. v. Hemani- Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission- Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. 109.37.

Watson v. Republican National Committee- Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. 7, 2 U.S.C. 1, and 3 U.S.C. 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

Trump v. Barbara- Birthright Citizenship

Monsanto Company v. Durnell- Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

Chatrie v. United States- Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe- Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Haitian nationals (Miot) and Syrian nationals (Mullin).

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

Opinions 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.

As of this morning, there are 33 remaining cases to be decided.
"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
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thx. TPS and Humphrey's Executor cases I feel pretty good about. Would be nice to see those come out, in any case.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm guessing TPS will be near the end of the term, perhaps the last day, simply becase it was heard on the final day of oral arguments.

Trump v. Slaughter will likely be sooner since it was argued in December, but there are 3 other cases from December which haven't been decided either.
"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
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two boxes today, so a minimum of 2 opinions (would have to be very long ones), but 4+ would seem most likely.

I would expect them to clear out a bunch of the mundane opinions today, but if there is one thing SCOTUS always is, it is unpredictable.
"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
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The period before a long weekend is also a good time to drop some big opinions too.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#1 today is M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

9-0 by Justice Jackson
Quote:

Whether 29 U.S.C. 1391's instruction to compute withdrawal liability "as of the end of the plan year" requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.

This is a case about the interpretation of ERISA and in particular how to calculate unfunded vested benefits .

The D.C. Circuit held that actuaries can select the assumptions that underlie the withdrawal-liability calculation after the measurement date, and the court today upholds that decision.

"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
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure why they granted cert in that case.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Jurist said:

Not sure why they granted cert in that case.

Circuit split.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#2 today is Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean Cruises.

8-1 by Justice Thomas

Kagan dissents

Quote:

Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation."

This is a case about whether a U.S. company can recover from four cruise lines that used the docks in Havana between 2016 and 2019. The U.S. company had owned an interest in the docks that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960, but the interest would have expired in 2004.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Havana Docks could not recover because the interest in the docks would have expired before 2016. The court today reverses.

This means any other opinions are either Thomas again, or the Chief.
"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
GarryowenAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's pretty significant since there were two boxes today. Makes me think a major opinion is about to be released.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hamm v. Smith (death penalty case) got DIGed (dismissed as improvidently granted).

Thomas dissents
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and in part by Gorsuch and the Chief.

Sotomayor and Jackson concur in the decision to DIG.

And we are done for the day.
"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
GarryowenAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very anticlimactic ending.
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pretty disappointing release day. Basically 5 weeks left.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GarryowenAg said:

Very anticlimactic ending.

Yep, not even that many opinions.

Guessing Hamm v. Smith is what took up a lot of box space given it had two dissents and one concurrence.
"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
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Jurist said:

Pretty disappointing release day. Basically 5 weeks left.

And 30 cases left. June is going to be busy.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Might even run into early July. 2024 went to July 1st.

July 4th is a Saturday so that would leave the 1st and 2nd as opinion days if needed since the 3rd would likely be a holiday.
"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
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

#2 today is Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean Cruises.

8-1 by Justice Thomas

Kagan dissents

Quote:

Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation."

This is a case about whether a U.S. company can recover from four cruise lines that used the docks in Havana between 2016 and 2019. The U.S. company had owned an interest in the docks that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960, but the interest would have expired in 2004.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Havana Docks could not recover because the interest in the docks would have expired before 2016. The court today reverses.





Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.