SCOTUS Watch – Monday, June 22nd – UPDATED

June is SCOTUS Decision month, when all eyes turn to the Supreme Court for rulings on the cases argued this term (before the court adjourns on June 30th for the summer). The calendar calls for orders and opinions to be released every Monday – 9:30am for orders and 10:00am for opinions. However, history has shown that additional “opinion days” are often added as the month unfolds and this year is no different as last week we had our first Thursday opinion day (no word yet on this week) THERE WILL BE A THURSDAY OPINION DAY – Liveblog to start at 8:30am Eastern, opinions at 10:00am and also Friday at 10:00am.

As always, the Moose News Network will cover the SCOTUS events with the help of SCOTUSblog and Twitter.

 
All eyes turn to the court

UPDATE: Four cases
– The City of Los Angeles vs. Patel – 9th Circuit upheld in matter of turning over guest registries. The city has no right to the guest registries.
– Kimball v Marvel Entertainment LLC – Marvel wins. Lower court rulings upheld that the original holder of a patent is not entitled to royalties after the patent expires.
– Kingsley v Hendrickson – 7th Circuit overruled in a Due Process case granting protections to a jail inmate.
– Horne v Department of Agriculture – 9th Circuit overruled. Raisin farmer entitled to compensation for raisins seized in the excess raisin program.

The Supreme Court will be in session this morning for orders and opinions starting at 9:30am Eastern. SCOTUSblog will liveblog at this link starting at 9:00am Eastern.

Included in the list of cases heard in the current term but not yet decided are these:
– The marriage equality cases, listed under Obergefell v. Hodges (6th Circuit ruled in favor of the state bans)
– The Affordable Care Act state exchange case, King v Burwell (4th Circuit ruled in favor of Burwell)
– The “can citizens redistrict?” case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (the Federal District Court upheld the redistricting, legislature appealed directly to Supreme Court)
– A death penalty case related to the drugs used, Glossip v Gross (Oklahoma wants to change its drug protocol, 10th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs and for the state)
– An assault on the Fair Housing Act, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (The 5th Circuit ruled against the state agency’s application of the Fair Housing Act)
– Three suits against the EPA over its regulation of utilities and “failure” to consider costs, listed as Michigan vs. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (The states are appealing a ruling upholding EPA rule making procedures)
DECIDED – 9th Circuit Upheld A 4th Amendment case involving hotel guest registries, The City of Los Angeles vs. Patel (the city is appealing 9th Circuit ruling that the registries do not need to be turned over)

A full list of pending cases (with links) is below the fold.

Update from USA Today on the 11 remaining cases: Half a dozen major cases await Supreme Court rulings

WASHINGTON — The future of same-sex marriage and President Obama’s health care law hang in the balance as the Supreme Court’s 2014 term draws rapidly to a close this month. But those aren’t the only big issues on the justices’ plate.

Fair elections, racial discrimination, clean air, capital punishment: All await rulings over the next two weeks as the court completes action on 11 cases remaining this term. The next decisions will come Monday morning.

Analysis from Al Jazeera from June 1st: Supreme Court to decide on 13 cases over next few weeks

June is the final month of the Supreme Court’s annual term before the summer recess begins. Over the next few weeks, the Court will make decisions on 13 major cases. Among the issues up for debate are same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, and religious freedom.

From SCOTUSblog: October 2014 Term cases pending (oldest cases first)

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, No. 13-1371 [Arg: 1.21.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314 [Arg: 3.2.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175 [Arg: 3.3.2015 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry, and if so, whether the ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry.

King v. Burwell, No. 14-114 [Arg: 3.4.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163 [Arg: 3.24.2015]

Issue(s): Whether, under Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void,” a Chapter 7 debtor may “strip off” a junior mortgage lien in its entirety when the outstanding debt owed to a senior lienholder exceeds the current value of the collateral.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-47 [Arg: 3.25.2015 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46 [Arg: 3.25.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-49 [Arg: 3.25.2015 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, No. 13-720 [Arg: 3.31.2015 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether this Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” CVSG: 10/30/2014.

Johnson v. U.S., No. 13-7120 [Arg: 4.20.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (2) Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275 [Arg: 4.22.2015 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the government’s “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, applies only to real property and not to personal property; (2) whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government’s discretion; and (3) whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a “condition” on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking.

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, No. 14-6368 [Arg: 4.27.2015 Trans.]
Issue(s): Whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the pretrial detainee and the use of force was objectively unreasonable.

DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571 [Arg: 4.28.2015]

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562 [Arg: 4.28.2015]

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 [Arg: 4.28.2015 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574 [Arg: 4.28.2015]

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955 [Arg: 4.29.2015 Trans.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious; (2) whether the plurality stay standard of Baze v. Rees applies when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze; and (3) whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment.

10 Comments

    • Funny discussion in the SCOTUSblog threads:

      Anybody else whose heart starts to race at the words “Here’s Lyle?”
      by AttyTMD 8:12 AM

      Tejinder: Yours, mine, and a truly alarming number of 25-year-old women.

      I made the students in the summer class I’m teaching watch the liveblog with me last week. They were not amused.
      by terry4prez 8:22 AM

      Amy Howe: Because we weren’t funny enough? Do we need to repost the graphic of RBG arriving at the Court on a unicorn?

  1. Also before the court is the request from Texas abortion providers to put the 5th Circuit’s ruling on hold pending an appeal.

    On Friday, the court received the request for a delay in enforcement of the onerous Texas abortion restrictions:

    Abortion clinics and doctors in Texas asked the Supreme Court on Friday night to delay enforcement of a 2013 state abortion law while an appeal to the Justices is pursued. Without a postponement, the lengthy application said, more than half of the existing nineteen clinics in Texas will have to close on July 1, and some of them might never reopen.

    The delay request was filed with Justice Antonin Scalia, who handles emergency legal filings from the geographic region that includes Texas – the Fifth Circuit. He has the option of acting on his own or sharing the issue with his colleagues.

    Late Friday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused, by a two-to-one vote, to delay its June 9 ruling upholding most of the Texas law. It did modify slightly a part of that ruling in order to give one clinic — in McAllen, in the Rio Grande Valley — more time to adapt to the new restrictions.

    We will probably hear something this week on this since the court only has until June 30th to issue or deny the stay before it takes effect and clinics are forced to close. If they issue the stay, that is probably a good sign that they will take the case and also the Mississippi case still pending (one that ruled against the TRAP laws that would have closed the last abortion clinic in Mississippi). There are other appeals around the country related to this highly successful tactic by the forced birth crowd: requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and/or setting rules for abortion clinics that no other clinic providing outpatient surgical procedures are required to adhere to. A ruling would likely clear all those cases down the pipeline. That would be good news to give Texas women more time to come up with alternatives but bad news because we do not have a pro-Roe v Wade majority on the court; instead we have a majority that has been hacking away at women’s reproductive freedom. The odds of the TRAP laws being upheld by them are pretty high.

    • From SCOTUSblog

      Kingdomware Techs v. US – granted

      Nothing on Fisher (affirmative action out of Texas)

      The Order list is here.

      Lots of denials and SCOTUSblog will probably have commentary on which ones are meaningful and which are pro forma.

      • Four decisions – the only one we were tracking was the Patel 4th amendment case. Hotel registries do not have to be turned over to law enforcement except under court order.

        Back later with updates to post.

  2. Okay, what’s “Lyle” again? My nerves have been on edge, waiting for the biggies. Thanks for keeping up with them Jan, appreciate it!

    Hope you are not having really bad thunderstorms that will make you lose electric power.

    • I just shut down my computers in an abundance of caution. It was windy and rainy but the storm had mostly spent itself west of here. I was only offline for about an hour.

      “Lyle” is Lyle Denniston, the guy who works for SCOTUSblog and who is in the Supreme Court press area when the opinions are released. He is in communication with the blog and tells them first, how many boxes the court has shared with those gathered (each box contains opinions, usually 1 or 2 per box) and then tells us which cases have been decided and what the outcome is.

      Later they do commentary on the SCOTUSblog blog so we know what it all means. I don’t know about most of the cases … I have simply been tracking a handful that are interesting to me and most of the people I know.

      The biggies were not announced today, unless you are a raisin farmer. :)

      Word on the street (ie rank speculation) is that the marriage cases will be Monday and the ACA case this Friday.

Comments are closed.