SCOTUS opinion watch

[Torie]

Apparently, four cases likely to be published in a few minutes (based on two boxes of opinions being observed (apparently typically there are two opinions per box). You can monitor it all on this blog. Will the AZ mapping case be decided?

And the answer is no. Three decisions, all involving procedural lacunae, an attorneys' fee case, a case about the review standard for denial of a visa for a citizen spouse, and the reviewability of a Board of Immigration Appeals' decision. Until this Thursday then, when the next batch of decisions is due.

[Türkisblau]

Cases decided:
Baker Botts v. ASARCO
Kerry v. Din
Mata v. Lynch

[Torie]

The marriage equality opinion of SCOTUS may be coming out at 10:00 this morning, EDT, in about 30 minutes. If not that decision, it will be some other decision, or decisions.

One can follow the live blog here, to monitor the action. The blog writers laughs at the buzz that it will be the SSM decision, saying nobody knows. Hey, maybe it will be the AZ redistricting decision.

[Torie]

Two criminal procedure cases decided, and Justice Alito wrote two more that are coming up.

The third case, Davis v Ayala, another criminal procedure case, reversing the 9th Circuit, on the usual 5-4 block vote pattern, finding harmless error.

Fourth case Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confed Veterans. Breyer writes for the majority in a 5-4 decision, picking up Thomas' vote of all people, reversing the 5th circuit, holding that vanity license plates are government speech, and thus the government is free to censor what is on the plates.

A goodie from the blog:

"Lovers of Justice Scalia and/or the confrontation clause should DEFINITELY check out Scalia's concurrence in the judgment in Ohio v. Clark. It is some sharply worded stuff -- accuses Alito of "shoveling dirt" on the grave of the key precedents, and using intentionally confusing "dicta" to try to undermine the clause's protections."

One more case to go ...

And it is ... from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts ...

Oh from Thomas - Reed v. Town of Gilbert.  This was a 1st amendment unanimous decision, albeit with three concurring opinions, that the town of Gilbert's sign regulations were content based, and thus nixed not surviving strict scrutiny. So government can regulate speech on license plates, because they're government property or something, but not signs because they are not, or whatever. Localities have trouble getting the SCOTUS memo that they should not mess with free speech, absent compelling reasons to do so.

So nothing really sexy for Forumites to feast upon. Next batch of cases is this coming Monday.

Given the schedule of when cases were heard, and how work loads are allocated, and the seniority order and all, the blog thinks this means Kennedy is writing a civil rights case about discriminatory effect versus intent with respect to the fair housing law, which could mean anything as to the result. Kennedy is a swing vote on that set of issues is my impression.

One final blog goodie before I go:

"Kennedy in Davis v. Ayala separately provides a passionate discussion on the problems with solitary confinement with a quote from Dostoyevsky."

And there you have it!

[The Other Castro]

I feel like this upcoming Monday is going to be the big day.

[Kushahontas]

I feel like this upcoming Monday is going to be the big day.

If not then, when? After that, they only have the following Thursday and the Monday after that to do so right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When's the last time Thomas sided with the 4 most liberal justices in a 5-4 ruling? Weird. Actually weird that there were still 4 justices that wanted to force the State of Texas to have confederate flags on its license plates against its will. I mean how often does Texas do the right thing?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I feel like this upcoming Monday is going to be the big day.

If not then, when? After that, they only have the following Thursday and the Monday after that to do so right?

They sometimes will go into early July and/or add days beyond Monday and Thursday to hand out opinions. 29 June is the last currently scheduled day, but it go beyond that if they feel the need.  Probably depends on how feisty they are.

[t_host1]

The third case, Davis v Ayala, another criminal procedure case, reversing the 9th Circuit, on the usual 5-4 block vote pattern, finding harmless error.

   Quiet the set of words …”finding harmless error”, I wish I could apply this to the Obama vengeance doctrine.
 
 The black twitter mob on the white Texas pool party, the white error on a black leap of faith in South Carolina and its second thoughts gave way to vengeance. 

 Yes, I realize I may be out of context from your info/post, which I do appreciate, it is that making sense of [it] is for the minority.   

[Torie]

Good morning. We await the next set of case decisions of SCOTUS, which will start being announced in about 15 minutes. The blog action is here.

Two boxes of decisions again, so that means 3-4 cases will be announced.

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment. Spider-Man case. 6-3 decision affirming 9th Circuit. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas dissent. Court chooses to hew to its prior precedent in Brulotte v Thys Co. A contract requiring the payment of royalties after a patent expires remains unenforceable. Written by Kagan the most junior justice, so any justice could have written the next opinion other than Kagan. You don't mess with precedent with respect to a mere statute, the prior interpretation being one that contracting parties have relied upon.

Los Angeles v. Patel, 5-4 decision written by Sotomayor affirming 9th circuit again. Statute struck down as facially unconstitutional, because it failed to provide for pre compliance review. The question in this case was whether a Los Angeles ordinance that required hotel owners to keep registries of guests, and allowed officers to search them without any suspicion is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. With the name Patel you know it's a motel. Hey, it rhymes!

Kingsley v. Hendrickson. Pretrial detention case. Breyer writes the decision. Vote is 5-4. Under Section 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim. Typical block vote, with Kennedy the swing vote. Application of a subjective good faith test is rejected.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture. Written by Roberts reversing the 9th circuit (the 9th circuit seems to be ground zero for SCOTUS doesn't it?). Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. Hands off my raisons! It is 5-4 as to at least some parts. Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan partly concur, partly dissent. Sotomayor dissents in full. This is a major blow to government's program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market. Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking. It does not mean that the raisins have not been appropriated for government use, nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition for selling in interstate commerce.

Well, the good news is that I think I agree with what SCOTUS did above in each instance. Good job SCOTUS. The bad news is that the big 3 are still pending, the AZ commission case, the SSM case, and the Obamacare case about subsidizing premiums for  federal exchanges where a state has chosen not to have a state exchange.

Cases remaining to be decided according to the blogger: Texas Fair Housing Act, Arizona redistricting commission, King v. Burwell, Michigan v. EPA, Johnson v. US, Obergefell v. Hodges, Glossip v. Gross,

Until next Thursday then, when I hope we can do this all again.

[The Other Castro]

The most likely "big" cases for today could be Obamacare or Arizona redistricting. Same sex marriage seems unlikely for today actually.

[JerryArkansas]

I'm on my heels right now, they saved the best 7 for last.  All of these final cases I've been watching for the entire term.   Can't wait for the next opinion day.

Also, for those who don't know, final cases are Texas Fair Housing Act, Arizona redistricting commission, King v. Burwell, Michigan v. EPA, Johnson v. US, Obergefell v. Hodges, Glossip v. Gross.

[Torie]

For what it is worth, the AZ commission case, and the Obamacare cases were heard in February, and Roberts, Ginsburg and Kennedy have not written any decisions yet for the February tranche. Of the 11 cases argued in February, it's 2 decisions for Scalia, Breyer and Alito, and one for Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. So odds are, that one of the missing three are writing the AZ commission case, and the Obamacare case. My bet is that Roberts is writing the Obamacare case, leaving Kennedy or Ginsburg for the AZ commission case. And given  that Kennedy has not written anything as to the cases heard in January, Kennedy is probably writing the Texas fair housing law case decision heard in January.

But one never knows. For example, one justice will not be writing any decision at all for the February tranche, since only the AZ commission case and the Obamacare case remain from February, and three justices have yet to be heard from.

The chart below gives the numbers, but it does not include today's decisions, so mark down a "1" for Sotomayor for the Patel decision.

[Torie]

Sean Trende branches out from being an electoral statistician, to playing Supreme Court bingo. FWIW, his reading of the tea leaves is that the AZ commission is in deep trouble, even if the decision is written by Ginsburg.

[Ebsy]

Sean Trende branches out from being an electoral statistician, to playing Supreme Court bingo. FWIW, his reading of the tea leaves is that the AZ commission is in deep trouble, even if the decision is written by Ginsburg.

Please stop linking trash from Sean Trende.

[muon2]

Sean Trende branches out from being an electoral statistician, to playing Supreme Court bingo. FWIW, his reading of the tea leaves is that the AZ commission is in deep trouble, even if the decision is written by Ginsburg.

Please stop linking trash from Sean Trende.

His analysis isn't very different than at ScotusBlog. Are they trash, too?

[Ebsy]

Sean Trende branches out from being an electoral statistician, to playing Supreme Court bingo. FWIW, his reading of the tea leaves is that the AZ commission is in deep trouble, even if the decision is written by Ginsburg.

Please stop linking trash from Sean Trende.

His analysis isn't very different than at ScotusBlog. Are they trash, too?

You don't know Torie's history of linking Sean Trende pieces and pretending to not realize that he's a Republican and attempting to pass it off as fair analysis.

[Torie]

Sean Trende branches out from being an electoral statistician, to playing Supreme Court bingo. FWIW, his reading of the tea leaves is that the AZ commission is in deep trouble, even if the decision is written by Ginsburg.

Please stop linking trash from Sean Trende.

His analysis isn't very different than at ScotusBlog. Are they trash, too?

You don't know Torie's history of linking Sean Trende pieces and pretending to not realize that he's a Republican and attempting to pass it off as fair analysis.

Putting aside the tendentious "pretending" bit, yes he does actually.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Tomorrow should be interesting. I'm expecting at least one of the 'big three' cases to be decided. (AZ redistricting, SSM, Obamacare)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are there any left that seem like cases that could possibly be reargued?

[SteveRogers]

Apparently opinions will be released tomorrow AND Friday. My wholly unsubstantiated guess is AZ redistricting tomorrow, Obamacare Friday, and SSM Monday.

[ElectionsGuy]

The decisions are good so far. I'm very much looking forward to the Arizona case, Johnson v US, and King v Burwell

[Torie]

Good morning again. Two boxes again, so that means 3-4 more opinions.

Texas Housing case, written by Kennedy as expected. Kennedy in 5-4 decision joins the liberals. This is unexpected. The lower court is affirmed, and housing discrimination is an objective test. One looks to impact, not intent. So the next 2 or 3 opinions come from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts.

Obamacare! Roberts in 6-3 decision. 4th circuit upheld. Subsidies are available. That sigh of relief you hear is from Obama, along with the Pubs in Congress who were filled with fear and loathing about having to come up with a constructive alternative. Kennedy joins Roberts with the liberals, Scalia writes dissent. These block votes and who swings are just so predictable aren't they?

Well that's it. Only two opinions. The above two decisions must have been long and fat, and took up a lot of room in the boxes. I suspect that is in part due to lengthy dissents.

So that leaves SSM and the AZ Commission as still pending as to the marquee cases. The Demographics board did not get its fix today.

Roberts on Obamacare held that the ambiguity in the language was not subject to administrative interpretation, but parsed the text himself to resolve the ambiguity in the government's favor. He's a very clever man in discerning how to pull textual rabbits out of the hat, seeing what few but him see. He's awesome.

From the majority opinion: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." After acknowledging the strength of the plain language arguments from the challengers, the majority says "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."  I think Roberts is really saying that the language must have just been f'ed up - to wit scrivener's error although that deus ex machina was viewed by the cognoscenti as not in play here.

In fact, scrivener's error is de rigour in the ACA act. It's a mess. As Robert's writes:  "The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting." Who knew?  

Scalia's reposte: "The majority's reading of the text "is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."  Scalia does not like the scrivener's error concept being applied here much now does he?

Anyway, more decisions tomorrow, and more on Monday - same place, same time. See you then. Cheers.

[SteveRogers]

Obamacare is saved! 6-3; Roberts wrote majority opinion!

[Iosif]

From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

Aw, someone's a little butthurt.

The NY Times has an interesting take on the court's apparent move to the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/23/upshot/the-roberts-courts-surprising-move-leftward.html?abt=0002&abg=0