It’s been ages, but we’re finally back with new decisions. After literally months of silence (at least with respect to opinions), the Court came roaring back this week with eight (eight!) new decisions:
While Chief Justice Roberts was busy this week getting ready to preside over his first-ever trial (best to start with something small, like impeachment of the president), the rest of the Court was continuing with business as usual, issuing two new decisions. The Nine have also been at work filling out the remainder of their docket, with a bevy of cert grants over the last
Read More Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (18-938), Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander (no. 18 1165)The Court was back this week with its first two signed opinions of the term. As in past terms, The Nine led off with a relatively straightforward statutory interpretation case. But somewhat unusually, the Court’s first opinion was not unanimous, and not authored by Justice Ginsburg. To be fair, at 8-1 (or maybe, more accurately 8.5-.5), it was pretty close, and RBG wrote for
Read More Rotkiske v. Klemm (no. 18-328), Peter v. NantKwest (no. 18-801), Thompson v. Hebdon (no. 19-122)It’s the first Monday of October, so we’re back with our first installment for OT19. While OT18 ended on something of a bang (census, partisan-gerrymandering . . . you remember), OT19 looks to be a blockbuster term right out of the gate, with arguments tomorrow on two of the most anticipated cases of the term, Bostock v. Clayton County (No. 17-1618), on whether discrimination
Read More Bostock v. Clayton County (No. 17-1618), R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (No. 18-107), Trump v. NAACP (No. 18-588), New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York (No. 18-280), Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue (No. 18-1195), June Medical Services v. Gee (No. 18-1323)The Nine have gone their separate ways, but we’re still soldiering on (albeit from vacation and paternity leave, respectively). We’ve got six more cases for you, so we’ll split them up into manageable trios. Read on for summaries of Kisor v. Wilkie (No. 18-15), in which the Auer doctrine narrowly escaped the jurisprudential dustbin; Food Marketing Institute v. Argus (No. 18-481), in which
Read More Kisor v. Wilkie (No. 18-15), Food Marketing Institute v. Argus (No. 18-481), United States v. Haymond (No. 17-1762)On the last decision day of the term, the Chief Justice put on his AMK hat, casting the decisive vote on opposite (political) sides in the two most politically salient cases of the term, involving the census and partisan gerrymandering.
In Department of Commerce v. New York (No. 18-966) (consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek), the Chief sided with (and, in part, wrote for) the
Read More Department of Commerce v. New York (No. 18-966), Rucho v. Common Cause (No. 18-422), Mitchell v. Wisconsin (No. 18-6210), Carpenter v. Murphy (No. 17-1107), Iancu v. Brunetti (No. 18-302)