With just four weeks to go before the end of the Court’s term and nearly three dozen cases yet to be decided, it’s going to be a busy June at One First Street. But this week, the Court took some small steps toward working through the remaining cases, issuing decisions in four argued cases. On Monday, the Court issued three: It unanimously held in Siegel
Read More Siegel v Fitzgerald (No. 21-441), Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (No. 21-309), Gallardo v. Marstiller (No. 20-1263)
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (No. 21-328)
Two decisions to report this week, which illustrate the spectrum of accord and division among The Nine, depending on subject matter. In Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), a bitterly divided Court ruled (6-3 on ideological lines) that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) precludes federal habeas courts from conducting evidentiary hearings or otherwise considering evidence beyond the state-court record
Read More Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (No. 21-328)Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate (No. 21-12), Patel v. Garland (No. 20-979)
Two more decisions this week as we round the bend to the final stretch of OT21. In Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate (No. 21-12), the Court struck down another section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), concluding that limitations on how and when a campaign may reimburse loans from the candidate after election day violate the First
Read More Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate (No. 21-12), Patel v. Garland (No. 20-979)Shurtleff v. City of Boston (No. 20-1800)
Slow news week at One First Street, with just one 9-0 decision in a (fairly interesting) First Amendment case. What’s that you say? You’ve heard tell of another opinion making the rounds? Fair enough, it could be that the most significant constitutional decision in fifty years was “pre-released” on Monday. But as it’s also possible that the actual decision of the Court will be markedly
Read More Shurtleff v. City of Boston (No. 20-1800)Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (No. 20-129), Brown v. Davenport (No. 20-826)
The Nine heard their last argument of OT21 yesterday, and one of them—Justice Breyer—the last of his nearly 30-year career on the Court. (His final question, since you ask? A very characteristic “Am I right or wrong?”) The Court also issued one opinion this week, holding in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (No. 20-129) that damages for emotional distress are not available under the antidiscrimination provisions
Read More Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (No. 20-129), Brown v. Davenport (No. 20-826)City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (No. 20-1029), United States v. Vaello Madero (No. 20-303), Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 20-1471), Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (No. 20-1566)
It was a busy day at One First Street yesterday, with five new decisions. In City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (No. 20-1029), the Court clarified its test for determining when speech-restrictions are content based and therefore presumptively invalid. In United States v. Vaello Madero (No. 20-303), the Court held that residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have a
Read More City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (No. 20-1029), United States v. Vaello Madero (No. 20-303), Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 20-1471), Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (No. 20-1566)