Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued the last of its rulings in argued cases from the October 2022 Term.
1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Department of Education v. Brown, No. 22-535. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22-506. Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“The Supreme Court Rejected a Dangerous Elections Theory. But It’s Not All Good News.” Law professor Richard H. Pildes has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“US Supreme Court clears path for plaintiffs to pick where to sue corporations”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.
“The Senate’s Feinstein Question: Would Republicans allow the ailing California Democrat to be replaced on the Judiciary Committee if she resigned from her seat? It’s a political question as well as an institutional one.” Carl Hulse has this new installment of his “Congressional Memo” column online at The New York Times.
“Supreme Court Sides With Postal Carrier Who Refused to Work on Sabbath; The unanimous decision interpreted a federal civil rights law to require employers to make substantial efforts to accommodate their workers’ religious practices”: Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court backs Christian worker who wanted Sundays off in case that may have wide impact.”
And Alex Swoyer, Stephen Dinan, and Mark A. Kellner of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules for ex-mail carrier refusing to work on Sabbath.”
“Florida Courthouse Named for Influential Judge”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts today issued a news release that begins, “The federal courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida will be named in honor of the late Judge Joseph W. Hatchett, a trailblazing jurist who was among the first African Americans appointed to the federal bench in the South.”
“‘Pride’ rainbow cookies available in Supreme Court cafeteria”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action Programs at Harvard and U.N.C.; In earlier decisions, the court had endorsed taking account of race as one factor among many to promote educational diversity”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rejects race-based affirmative action in college admissions.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court strikes down race-based affirmative action in college admissions.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action in College Admissions; Justices rule race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional.”
John Fritze and Alia Wong of USA Today report that “Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC in blow to diversity efforts.”
And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules race-based affirmative action unconstitutional.”
“Supreme Court’s Two Black Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg News has this report.
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “US Justices Jackson, Thomas illustrate heated US debate on race.”
Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson criticize each other in unusually sharp language in affirmative action case.”
And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson air sharp disagreement on race in America; Thomas accused Jackson of promoting a ‘race-infused world view’; Jackson said Thomas was ignoring the facts.”
“Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Sotomayor read affirmative action opinions from the bench in rare move; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declares ‘the Constitution prevails,’ while Justice Sonia Sotomayor says race ‘continues to matter'”: Anders Hagstrom of Fox News has this report.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued three rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., No. 21-1043. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Alito also delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174. And Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. And Chief Justice Roberts issued the opinion of the Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined in full and Justice Jackson joined with regard to the case in which she is not recused. And Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion in the case in which she is not recused, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the oral arguments here and here.
“Judge, 96, Mourns Tarnished Legacy While Saying She Won’t Leave”: Kelcee Griffis of Bloomberg Law has this report about her recent interview with Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman.
Yesterday, Griffis reported that “Doctor Cleared 96-Year-Old Newman for Bench, Amended Suit Says.”
Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that “US judge facing competency probe asks court to block her suspension.”
Megan Butler of Courthouse News Service reports that “Suspended Federal Circuit judge fights to retain bench seat; Judge Pauline Newman is being investigated by her colleagues for alleged judicial misconduct and competency complaints.”
At the “IPWatchdog” blog, Ron Katznelson, PhD has a post titled “Recent Evidence Raises Questions on Efforts to Silence Dissent at the Federal Circuit.”
And today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance issued a news release titled “NCLA Asks U.S. District Court to Stop Unconstitutional Suspension of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman.”
“‘Dormant Commerce’ and Corporate Powers: Some reflections on the decision in Mallory.” Stephen E. Sachs has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“To tackle major elections case, Supreme Court dusted off Bush v. Gore; The ruling used to decide the 2000 election resurfaced in a major decision this week”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.
“A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism”: Mark Joseph Stern previously had this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate about the case that has resulted in a ruling that U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued today.
“Court sides with Choctaw man in McGirt fight over city of Tulsa traffic ticket”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.
“The Supreme Court Just Helped Save American Democracy From Trumpism”: Columnist David French has this essay in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“You Don’t Need to Bring a Gift to Your Supreme Court Hearing. But If You Must, Here Is My Justice Registry.” Alex O’Connor has this item at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency.
“Neil Gorsuch’s Quirky Originalism Just Dealt a Major Blow to Corporate America”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Liberal wins at the Supreme Court may prove to be fleeting; Although liberal justices prevailed in rulings on voting rights, election law and Native American rights, those legal issues could yet return to the court”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.
“There’s a Time Bomb in Progressives’ Big Supreme Court Voting Case Win”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections; The 6-to-3 majority dismissed the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects GOP claim that state lawmakers have full power over elections.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds State Courts’ Power to Prevent Gerrymanders; State constitutions can provide grounds to strike down skewed congressional maps.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rejects GOP call for unchecked power for state legislatures in US elections; In a win for voting rights groups, the court rejected the North Carolina GOP argument that state lawmakers should have extraordinary powers over election rules.”
And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court says state courts can review election law, rejects independent state legislator theory.”
“Supreme Court Puts First Amendment Limits on Laws Banning Online Threats; The case concerned Billy Counterman, a Colorado man who became obsessed with a singer-songwriter, sending her disturbing messages on Facebook”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Ann E. Marimow and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court says a conviction for online threats violated 1st Amendment; Prosecutors must show that a person responsible for threats understood the threatening nature of that speech, justices say.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court makes it harder to prosecute online stalkers.”
Jan Wolfe and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Raises Bar on Prosecuting Online Stalkers; Addressing what constitutes a ‘true threat,’ court throws out a cyberstalking conviction.”
John Fritze of USA Today has a report headlined “Stalking or free speech? Critics say Supreme Court just made it harder to stop stalkers.”
And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justices limit reach of threat-speech laws, rule prosecutors must show intent to harm.”
“Supreme Court Allows Unusual Pennsylvania Law on Corporate Suits; A novel Pennsylvania law requires corporations that do business in the state to consent to being sued there, even if the suits have nothing to do with the state”: Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Gives State Courts More Power Over Corporate Defendants; Norfolk Southern loses its bid to limit exposure to state courts.”
And Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law reports that “State Registration Law Feared by Business Upheld by Justices.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.
1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, and issued the opinion of the Court in various respects. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in large measure, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. And Justice Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Alito joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Federal judge defends Clarence Thomas in new book, rejects ‘pot shots’ at Supreme Court”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.
“Samuel Alito Joins the Supreme Court’s Billionaires’ Club”: Columnist Jamelle Bouie has this essay online at The New York Times.
“After Affirmative Action Ends: The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of ‘race-neutral’ methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies.” Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.
“Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Block Democrats’ Plans to Tax the Rich; Ruling on constitutional challenge to 2017 tax could lead to large corporate refunds”: Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
And Tuesday’s edition of that newspaper will contain an editorial titled “A Wealth-Tax Watershed for the Supreme Court; The Justices will hear Moore v. U.S., which asks if ‘income’ under the law can be an unrealized gain.”
“Supreme Court Declines to Hear Closely Watched Case on Charter Schools”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report.
“Justices Who Benefited From Affirmative Action May Decide Its Fate; Supreme Court’s Thomas and Sotomayor were aided by such programs and look back on them very differently”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
“The Timing of Alito’s Private Jet Scandal Couldn’t Be More Damning; Cast in light of a recent ruling, the justice’s self-serving duplicity looks even worse”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“The Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe: His work underpins the Dobbs decision; His legacy matters enormously to what’s next for constitutional law.” Caitlin B. Tully has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“In Isolated Guam, Abortion Is Legal. And Nearly Impossible to Get. The tiny U.S. territory in the western Pacific Ocean is thousands of miles from the nearest state, and has no resident doctors who perform abortions. Court decisions could cut access to pills, the only legal option left.” David W. Chen of The New York Times has this report.
“DC Circ. Judge Tatel To Join Hogan Lovells’ Litigation Practice”: Katie Buehler of Law360 has this report.
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “Judge Dave Retires from the Bench; The Honorable David B. Sentelle has heard his last case.”
