As we await tomorrow’s batch of opinions, let’s take a moderately deep dive into Monday’s partisan-gerrymandering decisions, Gill v. Whitford (No. 16-1161) and Benisek v. Lamone (No. 17-333). As we reported earlier, the Supreme Court punted on the ultimate issue in the cases, namely whether the Democratic challengers to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan (in Gill) and the Republican challengers to a gerrymandered Maryland district
Read More Gill v. Whitford (16-1161), Benisek v. Lamone (17-333)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (16-1435), Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (16-1220)
The Nine chipped away at The Nineteen (cases remaining) this morning, but not without lacing up their punting boots. In one of the most hotly anticipated cases of the year (and the longest pending, having been argued on the first day of the term), a unanimous Supreme Court held in Gill v. Whitford (No. 16-1161) that it would prefer not to decide whether partisan gerrymandering
Read More Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (16-1435), Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (16-1220)Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute (16-980), Sveen v. Melin (16-1432), China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (17-432)
This morning, the Court made some headway (emphasis on “some”) on the roughly two dozen cases left to decide by the end of the month. Specifically, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (No. 16-1435), the Court held 7-2 that Minnesota’s ban on wearing political t-shirts while voting violates the First Amendment. And in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (No. 16-1220),
Read More Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute (16-980), Sveen v. Melin (16-1432), China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (17-432)
Orders: June 11, 2018
The Nine kicked off the week with four new decisions, though only three came with signed opinions. In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (No. 16-980), the Court held (5-4) that Ohio’s “use it or lose it” practice of cancelling the voter registrations of individuals who fail to vote for two years and fail to respond to an address-verification does not violate the National Voter
Read More Orders: June 11, 2018
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission (16-111), Hughes v. United States (17-155), Koon v. United States (17-5716), Lamar Archer & Cofrin v. Appling (16-1215)
As we reported earlier in the week, The Nine handed down one of the most hotly anticipated decisions of the term on Monday, and boy did it deliver! Wait. Sorry, strike that. It turns out the 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission (No. 16-111), mostly delivered a lesson in how to avoid difficult questions when you regret granting cert and
Read More Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission (16-111), Hughes v. United States (17-155), Koon v. United States (17-5716), Lamar Archer & Cofrin v. Appling (16-1215)Orders: June 4, 2018
The Nine were back in action this morning, as they will be every Monday from here on out (and probably a number or other days besides). There were four new decisions announced today, including what was expected to be one of the blockbusters of the terms, but ended up being more of a punt: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (No. 16-111),
Read More Orders: June 4, 2018