The Court continued its slow drip of decisions in less-prominent cases this week with Wilkins v. United States (No. 21-1164), which addressed whether the limitations period for suits against the government under the Quiet Title Act is “jurisdictional” or not. But this time, the decision wasn’t unanimous, with six of the justices concluding the limitations period was simply a non-jurisdictional defense, over a dissent
Read More Wilkins v. United States (No. 21-1164)Supreme Court Updates
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (No. 21-887)
This week, the Court heard argument in a pair of interesting trademark cases: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International (No. 21-1043), which asks whether U.S. trademark law applies to conduct in foreign countries; and Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (No. 22-148), addressing just how much the First Amendment protects dog-poop jokes at the expense of a famous consumer brand. But on the…
Read More Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (No. 21-887)Delaware v. Pennsylvania (No. 145, Orig.) and Bittner v. United States (No. 21-1195)
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)