Today was the last scheduled date of OT18, but The Nine still have more work to do. The Court handed down two big decisions today—Abbot v. Perez (No. 17-586), upholding all but one challenged TX congressional district against a racial-gerrymandering challenge; and Ohio v. American Express (No. 16-1454), holding that Amex’s antisteering provisions (which prohibit merchants from “steering” customers to use other
Read More Carpenter v. United States (16-402), Pereira v. Sessions (17-459), WesternGeco, LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (16-1011)
South Dakota v. Wayfair (17-494), Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (17-130), Wisconsin Central v. United States (17-530)
We’re getting there. Four more decisions this morning, including one of the A-list blockbusters of the term, Carpenter v. United States (No. 16-402), in which the Court limited the “third-party records” doctrine and held that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site records from wireless carriers is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision, to paraphrase Joe Biden, is a big . . . deal.
Read More South Dakota v. Wayfair (17-494), Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (17-130), Wisconsin Central v. United States (17-530)
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (17-21), Rosales-Mireles v. United States (16-9493), Chavez-Meza v. United States (17-5639)
The Court handed down two of the second-tier blockbusters of the term, this morning: South Dakota v. Wayfair (No. 17-494), reversing Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) and permitting states to force out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax even if the sellers lack a physical presence in the state; and Lucia v. SEC (No. 17-1330), reversing the D.C. Circuit and holding
Read More Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (17-21), Rosales-Mireles v. United States (16-9493), Chavez-Meza v. United States (17-5639)Gill v. Whitford (16-1161), Benisek v. Lamone (17-333)
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)