It seems the Nine may finally be settling into a practice of actually issuing decisions in argued cases. This week witnessed two more relatively minor decisions, including one with a first-of-its-kind lineup. Read on for summaries of Delaware v. Pennsylvania (No. 145, Orig.),in which the Court unanimously held that that the First State can’t hog all the MoneyGram payments that go unclaimed each year
Read More Delaware v. Pennsylvania (No. 145, Orig.) and Bittner v. United States (No. 21-1195)
Cruz v. Arizona (No. 21-846), Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt (No. 21-984), and Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (No. 21-908)
After waiting until late January to issue its first signed opinion of the term, the Nine then made us wait another month for the second (and, so it happens, the third and the fourth). That’s still well behind the typical pace: In most terms, we’d expect to have seen upwards of a dozen signed decisions by now. But at least this batch of decisions is
Read More Cruz v. Arizona (No. 21-846), Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt (No. 21-984), and Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (No. 21-908)Arellano v. McDonough
Just as winter snow has been historically late in arriving in some parts of the country, the Supreme Court was historically late in issuing its first signed opinion of the year. On Monday, 112 days after the start of the term, the Court issued its first opinion in an argued case, unanimously deciding in Arellano v. McDonough (No. 21-432) that the statute setting the effective
Read More Arellano v. McDonoughBuffington v. McDonough (No. 21-972), Anthony v. Louisiana (No. 21-993), Clendening v. United States (No. 21-1410), Khorrami v. Arizona (No. 21-1553), Chinn v. Shoop (No. 22-5058), and Thomas v. Lumpkin (No. 21-444)
We’re back to start a new term. Coming off a seismic OT21, The Nine (or at least four of them) may be hoping for a “down year” in OT22. But that seems unlikely, as even the cases already on the calendar have the potential to produce some blockbuster decisions—on elections (Moore v. Harper, 21-1271); affirmative action (Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC
Read More Buffington v. McDonough (No. 21-972), Anthony v. Louisiana (No. 21-993), Clendening v. United States (No. 21-1410), Khorrami v. Arizona (No. 21-1553), Chinn v. Shoop (No. 22-5058), and Thomas v. Lumpkin (No. 21-444)West Virginia v. EPA (No. 20-1530), Biden v. Texas (No. 21-954), Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation (No. 20-1312)
We’re back with our final Update of OT21, covering yesterday’s decisions in West Virginia v. EPA (No. 20-1530) and Biden v. Texas (No. 21-954), as well as a straggler from last week, Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation (No. 20-1312). We’ll also preview some of the cases coming up for OT22.
We’ll start with West Virginia v. EPA, a big win for coal
Read More West Virginia v. EPA (No. 20-1530), Biden v. Texas (No. 21-954), Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation (No. 20-1312)Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (No. 21-429), Torres v. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety (No. 20-603), Ruan v. United States (No. 20-1410)
The Nine (of OT20-21) closed out one of the most momentous terms in recent memory this morning, handing down the last two decisions of the term in West Virginia v. EPA (No. 20-1530) and Biden v. Texas (No. 21-954). The Chief Justice wrote for differing majorities in both cases, joined in each by Justice Kavanaugh. In West Virginia, the Court held that the
Read More Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (No. 21-429), Torres v. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety (No. 20-603), Ruan v. United States (No. 20-1410)